The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Variation in Dentists' Clinical Decisions
Abstract
Objectives: The first comprehensive review of the recent literature regarding variation in dentists' clinical treatment decisions is presented. Methods: Variation among dentists in the clinical decisions they make as well as the methods used for assessing this variation are examined at three levels of aggregation of clinical decisions: the dental practice (or dentist), the patient, and the individual tooth. Results: The extent to which differences in dentists' clinical decisions have been examined is limited. Studies are particularly sparse at the level of the dental practice, where the aggregate of dentists' treatment decisions is reflected. Further, the methods and measures used to assess variation tend to be different across studies, making quantification of variation difficult. Nevertheless, the available information reflects substantial variation in measures such as rates of provision of specific procedures; cost and numbers of procedures recommended for specific patients; and diagnoses, intervention decisions, and treatment selections for individual teeth. Conclusions: Even when differences in patients are controlled, variation in dentists' clinical decisions is ubiquitous. While its consequences remain undetermined, the variation in basic clinical decisions such as caries diagnosis signals the need to consider the extent to which the appropriateness of care is affected.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An in vitro study of restorative dental treatment decisions and dental caries
Merrett, M. C., & Elderton, R. J. (1984) · British Dental Journal · doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4805448 · Cited by 83
Variation in caries recording and restorative treatment plan among university teachers
Rytömaa, I., Järvinen, V., & Järvinen, J. (1979) · Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.1979.tb01243.x · Cited by 81
Cited by
Update on Bispectral Index monitoring
Johansen, J. W. (2006) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2005.08.004 · Cited by 313
An Overview of Reasons for the Placement and Replacement of Restorations
Deligeorgi, V., Mjör, I. A., & Wilson, N. H. (2001) · Primary Dental Care · doi:10.1308/135576101771799335 · Cited by 311
Pitts, N. B. (2004) · Caries Research · doi:10.1159/000077769 · Cited by 259
The Substitution of Digital Images for Dermatologic Physical Examination
Kvedar, J. C. (1997) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.1997.03890380031005 · Cited by 187
What do we know about how dentists make caries-related treatment decisions?
Bader, J. D., & Shugars, D. A. (1997) · Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00905.x · Cited by 128
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bader, J. D., & Shugars, D. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health Dentistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 181-188
- ISSN
- 0022-4006 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-7325
- OpenAlex
- W2042452340
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variation in Dentists' Clinical Decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1995.tb02364.x
- The paper
- Bader, J. D., & Shugars, D. A. (1995). Variation in Dentists' Clinical Decisions. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1995.tb02364.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.