Objetivo: identificar o perfil de formação e atendimento de cirurgiões-dentistas (CDs) e procurar compreender qual a conduta prestada por esses profissionais em relação ao diagnóstico e ao tratamento das lesões cervicais não cariosas (LCNCs IntroduçãoAs lesões cervicais não cariosas (LCNCs) são caracterizadas pela perda de estrutura dental nas proximidades da junção cemento-esmalte (JCE) por meio de um processo não carioso 1,2 . Enquanto a redução da atividade de cárie é uma realidade em determinadas populações 3 , nota-se um aumento considerável na prática odontológica de problemas relacionados às LCNCs 1,3,4 . A prevalência desse tipo de lesão tem sido relatada como sendo de 5% a 85%, em vários estudos populacionais [5][6][7] . Esse fato pode

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

This study aimed to identify diagnosis and restorative practices of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by a group of Brazilian dentists from the State of Rio de Janeiro. After ethical approval, a questionnaire was sent for a group of dentists registered at the Regional Council of Dentistry of the State of Rio de Janeiro (CRO-RJ, Brazil) and the answers were collected in a period of 15 days. The questionnaire considered training experience and attendance profile, diagnostic attitudes and restorative practices for direct restorations of NCCLs. The data were presented in a descriptive way and Chisquare tests (95% significance) were used to verify possible relations between dentists training/attendance profiles and NCCLs diagnosis/restorative attitudes. Most part of dentists considered the etiology as multifactorial and seek to distinguish the different types of NCCL, but only a minority respond to use auxiliary methods for diagnosis. Cotton-roll is the most used method for moisture control and 51.6% do not use gingival retraction/separation techniques. Two-step total-etch adhesive systems and hybrid/ microhybrid composite resins were the most commonly refereed materials for direct restorations. Only 8.3% considered that restorations can last for a period of more than 5 years in clinical service. There was significant relation between remuneration and the type of isolation (p = 0.038) and also with gingival retraction/separation techniques (p = 0.043). It can be concluded that (a) the majority of the respondents revealed to seek distinguishes among the different types of NCCLs, but only a minority use auxiliary methods to diagnosis; (b) the form of remuneration influence the attitudes regarding the isolation method; (c) the two-step total-etch adhesive systems are the most used to restore NCCLs, (d) and that for the most part of the respondents the restorations of NCCLs made with resin composites do not last for more than 5 years.

No abstract