Treatment recommendations for proximal caries 1 RGO, Rev Gaúch Odontol. 2023;71:e20230029 CLINICAL | CLÍNICO | ORIGINAL http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-86372023002920220099 CC BY ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ 1 Universidade Estadual Paulista - UNESP, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departamento de Odontologia Social. Rua Humaitá, 1680, Centro, 14801-903, Araraquara, SP, Brasil. Correspondence to: EPS Tagliaferro. E-mail: <elaine.tagliaferro@unesp.br>. 2 University of Florida, College of Dentistry. Gainesville, FL, EUA. 3 University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Dentistry, Department of Clinical & Community Sciences. Birmingham, AL, EUA. How to cite this article Tagliaferro EPS, Riley III JL, Gilbert GH, Silva SRC, Rosell FL, Valsecki Junior A, et al. Evidence-practice gap in treatment recommendations for proximal caries among Brazilian dentists. RGO, Rev Gaúch Odontol. 2023;71:e20230029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-86372023002920220099 Evidence-practice gap in treatment recommendations for proximal caries among Brazilian dentists Lacuna entre a evidência e a prática nas recomendações de tratamento para cárie proximal entre dentistas brasileiros Elaine Pereira da Silva TAGLIAFERRO 1 0000-0001-6225-6915 Joseph L. RILEY III 2 0000-0003-1815-975X Gregg H. GILBERT 3 0000-0003-2017-625X Silvio Rocha Correa da SILVA 1 0000-0002-0227-8896 Fernanda Lopez ROSELL 1 0000-0002-6270-9168 Aylton VALSECKI JUNIOR 1 0000-0002-1776-0925 Valeria Veiga GORDAN 2 0000-0003-0381-5996 ABSTRACT Little is known about how Brazilian dentists’ treatment decisions for proximal carious lesions are compared to current evidence-based recommendations, so better understanding is needed to close any potential evidence-practice gap. Objectives: This cross-sectional study aimed to quantify the evidence-practice gap about proximal carious lesions treatment and identify dentist factors associated with this evidence-practice gap. Methods: Brazilian dentists (n=214) from Araraquara, São Paulo State, “completed a questionnaire about their dentist and practice characteristics and a translated version of the “Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Caries Treatment” from the U.S. National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Five radiographic images of proximal carious lesions in low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios were used. Associations between treatment recommendations and lesion, dentist, and practice characteristics were tested for statistical significance (p<0.05). Results: Lesions confined to the enamel would be restored by 35% and 71% of dentists in the low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios, respectively, suggesting a substantial evidence-practice gap given that surgical intervention of enamel lesions is not consistent with current evidence. The lesion depth threshold to recommend a permanent restoration differed between the low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios (p<0.001). Specific dentist/practice characteristics (dentist gender, graduate of a public dental school, postgraduate training, use of caries risk assessment) were significantly associated with the evidence-practice gap, but the magnitude of these differences was not major Conclusion: A substantial evidence-practice gap in treatment of proximal carious lesions was found for the sample overall, even when clinical scenarios presented low-risk patients. Global strategies are needed to close this substantial evidence-practice gap. Indexing terms: Decision making. Dental caries. Practice patterns, dentists’.