The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Clinical Inertia in Dentistry: A Review of the Phenomenon

D. Brad Rindal, William A. Rush, Raymond G. Boyle

Citation Information : Rindal DB, Rush WA, Boyle RG. Clinical Inertia in Dentistry: A Review of the Phenomenon. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (1):113-121.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-1-113

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

Dentistry has been slow to adopt innovations in dental practice even when they are recommended by national organizations and supported by evidence-based guidelines. The objective of this review is to describe clinical inertia, a concept described frequently in the medical literature, and to use findings from tobacco cessation and dental sealant studies as evidence of its existence.

Methods and Materials

A review of the literature published during the past 30 years was conducted to determine the state of affairs of two very different areas of dental practice, tobacco cessation intervention and application of sealants, to demonstrate the concept of clinical inertia in dental practice. Factors such as over estimating services provided, unfounded reasons not to act, lack of adequate training, and competing demands that account for the inertia were examined.

Discussion

Clinical inertia is a complex concept that needs more attention in dentistry. A variety of strategies will be required to overcome it in order to provide the best care for the public.

Conclusion

Clinical inertia is a useful paradigm for explaining delays in the incorporation of new knowledge into clinical practice. It offers a model against which the broader dental community can develop and test strategies to reduce the delays in translating best practices into daily practices.

Clinical Significance

The path to providing state-of-the-art care for the public is to engage in the discovery, dissemination, and acquisition of new knowledge then transform it into evidence-based best practices to be used in daily clinical practice.

Citation

Rindal DB, Rush WA, Boyle RG. Clinical Inertia in Dentistry: A Review of the Phenomenon. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 January; (9)1:113-121.

PDF Share
  1. The challenges of transferring evidence-based dentistry into practice. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2006; 6(1):125-8.
  2. Quality of care for secondary prevention for patients with coronary heart disease: results of the Hastening the Effective Application of Research through Technology (HEART) trial. Am Heart J. 2003; 146(6):1045-51.
  3. Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting. Diabetes Educ. 2005; 31(4):564-71.
  4. Clinical inertia in response to inadequate glycemic control: do specialists differ from primary care physicians? Diabetes Care. 2005; 28(3):600-6.
  5. Clinical inertia: errors of omission in drug therapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004; 61(4):401-4.
  6. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137(6):547-8; author reply 47-8.
  7. Overcome clinical inertia to control systolic blood pressure. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163(22):2677-8.
  8. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135(9):825-34.
  9. Clinical inertia in the management of Type 2 diabetes metabolic risk factors. Diabet Med. 2004; 21(2):150-5.
  10. Evidence-based dentistry: an overview of the challenges in changing professional practice. Br Dent J. 2001; 190(12):636-9.
  11. Getting research into clinical practice - barriers and solutions. Caries Res. 2004; 38(3):321-4.
  12. Leukoplakia: still a gallimaufry or is progress being made?— A review. Adv Anat Pathol. 1998; 5(3):137-55.
  13. Scientific progress in understanding oral and pharyngeal cancers. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129(6):713-8.
  14. Smoking-attributable periodontitis in the United States: findings from NHANES III. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Periodontol. 2000; 71(5):743-51.
  15. Smoking and periodontal disease. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2000; 11(3):356-65.
  16. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, Md, US. Of Health and Human Services. 2000 AHRQ Publication No. 00-0032.
  17. Treating tobacco use and dependence: an introduction to the US Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline. Respir Care. 2000; 45(10):1196-9.
  18. National patterns in the treatment of smokers by physicians. Jama. 1998; 279(8):604-8.
  19. Maryland dentists’ attitudes regarding tobacco issues. Clin Prev Dent. 1992; 14(2):10-6.
  20. Smoking cessation interventions for dental patients—attitudes and reported practices of dentists in the Oxford region. Br Dent J. 1997; 183(10):359-64.
  21. Addressing tobacco in managed care: a survey of dentists’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2002; 92(6):997-1001.
  22. Tobacco control activities in U.S. dental practices. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997; 128(12):1669-79.
  23. Use of tobacco prevention and cessation strategies and techniques in the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994; 125(11):1475-84.
  24. The COMMIT dental model: tobacco control practices and attitudes. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993; 124(9):92-104; discussion 06-8.
  25. Addressing oral disease--the case for tobacco cessation services. J Can Dent Assoc. 2001; 67(3):141-4.
  26. Dentists’ attitudes and practice regarding smoking. Aust Dent J. 1999; 44(1):46-50.
  27. A survey of Scottish primary care dental practitioners’ oral cancer-related practices and training requirements. Community Dent Health. 2000; 17(1):24-30.
  28. Australian dentists’ educational needs for smoking cessation counseling. J Cancer Educ. 2001; 16(2):80-4.
  29. Tobacco cessation services in dental offices. Are we doing all we can? N Y State Dent J. 2002; 68(7):34-40.
  30. Training for dentists in smoking cessation intervention. Aust Dent J. 2003; 48(3):183-9.
  31. Dental students’ attitudes toward smoking cessation guidelines. J Dent Educ. 2000; 64(9):641-50.
  32. Differences in tobacco assessment and intervention practices: a regional snapshot. Prev Med. 2000; 30(4):282-7.
  33. Preventive dentistry: what do Australian patients endorse and recall of smoking cessation advice by their dentists? Br Dent J. 2003; 194(3):159-64; discussion 50.
  34. Patient perceptions of tobacco cessation services in dental offices. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999; 130(2):219-26.
  35. Patient satisfaction and discussion of smoking cessation during clinical visits. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001; 76(2):138-43.
  36. Counseling adolescents for smoking prevention: a survey of primary care physicians and dentists. Am J Public Health. 1994; 84(7):1151-3.
  37. Dentists and oral cancer prevention in the UK: opinions, attitudes and practices to screening for mucosal lesions and to counseling patients on tobacco and alcohol use: baseline data from 1991. Oral Disease. 1999; (5)10-14.
  38. Dentists as smoking cessation counselors. J Am Dent Assoc. 1989; 118(1):29-32.
  39. The prevalence of dental sealants in the US population: findings from NHANES III, 1988-1991. J Dent Res. 1996; 75 Spec No(652-60.
  40. S. Public Health Service. Healthy people 2000: national health promotion and disease prevention objectives: full report, with commentary. Series Washington, D.C.:Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1990
  41. Dental Sealants: National Oral Health Surveillance System. 2003;
  42. Dental sealants. Who needs them? Public Health Rep. 1997; 112(2):98-106; discussion 07.
  43. The use of pit and fissure sealants in private practice: a national survey. J Public Health Dent. 1988; 48(1):26-35.
  44. A survey of general dentists in Ontario, Part I: Sealant use and knowledge. J Can Dent Assoc. 1997; 63(7):542, 45-53.
  45. The prevalence of dental sealants in North Carolina schoolchildren. J Public Health Dent. 1994; 54(3):177-83.
  46. Utilization of dental sealants by Alabama Medicaid children: barriers in meeting the year 2010 objectives. Pediatr Dent. 2001; 23(5):401-6.
  47. Sealant use by general practitioners: a Minnesota survey. ASDC J Dent Child. 1991; 58(1):38-45.
  48. The relationship between clinical tooth status and receipt of sealants among child Medicaid recipients. J Dent Res. 1997; 76(12):1862-8.
  49. Moffat D, Kim S, Goodman P. Impact of Targeted, School-Based Dental Sealant Programs in Reducing Racial and Economic Disparities in Sealant Prevalence Among Schoolchildren–Ohio, 1998–1999. MMWR. 2001; 50(34):736-8.
  50. Sealant use and dental utilization in U.S. children. ASDC J Dent Child. 1995; 62(4):250-5.
  51. Sealant use in public and private insurance programs. N Y State Dent J. 1999; 65(2):30-3.
  52. Factors associated with parental acceptance of dental sealants. J Public Health Dent. 1992; 52(3):137-45.
  53. The use of pit and fissure sealants. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24(5):415-22.
  54. Impact of an educational intervention for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction on Medicaid drug use and cost. Am J Manag Care. 2004; 10(7 Pt 2):493-500.
  55. Aligning financial incentives with “Get With The Guidelines” to improve cardiovascular care. Am J Manag Care. 2004; 10(7 Pt 2):501-4.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.