Objectives

This study was designed to: 1) evaluate and compare the evidence-practice gap (EPG) in minimal intervention dentistry (MID) in Japan and Brazil by measuring concordance between dentists’ clinical practice and published evidence; and 2) identify dentists’ factors associated with the EPG in both countries.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study using a web-delivered questionnaire among 136 Japanese and 110 Brazilian dentists. The questionnaire consisted of three questions concerning “restoration diagnosis and treatment,” “deep caries diagnosis and treatment,” and “caries risk assessment” regarding MID. A chi-square test was used to analyze differences in concordance among clinical practice and evidence from the literature between Japanese and Brazilian dentists. Logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze dentists’ factors associated with overall concordance for all three questions.

Results

Overall concordance was significantly higher in Brazil (55%) than in Japan (38%) (p<0.01). Concerning how evidence was obtained, textbooks, nonacademic journals, and seminars and workshops were used as information sources more frequently by Japanese than Brazilian dentists (p<0.001), whereas scientific journal articles in English were used more frequently by Brazilian dentists (p<0.001). On logistic regression analysis, overall concordance was higher for Japanese dentists who frequently obtained evidence from scientific journal articles in English (p<0.05), whereas Brazilian dentists who frequently obtained evidence from the Internet were associated with lower overall concordance (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Because overall concordance was significantly higher in Brazil than in Japan, Japan may have a greater EPG in MID practice. Specific characteristics of Japanese and Brazilian dentists showed significant associations with overall concordance.

You do not currently have access to this content.