Association between caries location and restorative material treatment provided

Abstract

Objectives This cross-sectional study by the Northwest PRECEDENT practitioners correlated the location of caries diagnosed in the past 12 months with treatment provided. Methods An oral health survey was conducted on up to 20 patients per practice for 101 practices in the Northwest PRECEDENT network. A total of 1943 eligible patients were randomly assessed for the location of and treatment provided for caries lesions diagnosed within the past 12 months. Regression analysis using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) was performed to assess association of treatment to tooth location and surface characterization, adjusting for age, practice location (urban/rural), dentist gender, and experience level. The analysis accounts for clustering by practice using robust variance estimates. Results Overall, 55.4% of patients exhibited recent caries and 42.8% received treatment for at least one permanent tooth. 18% of treated teeth were treated with amalgam, and 72% were treated with composite. This percentage varied as a function of tooth surface characteristics, patient characteristics, and dentist characteristics. The results suggest that restoration selection does depend on tooth type and which surfaces are being restored. The odds of a molar receiving an amalgam restoration are 2.44 (95% CI=1.81–3.30) times higher as compared to a bicuspid, adjusting for all other covariates. When the restoration includes the occlusal surface of a tooth the odds are 0.42 (95% CI=0.20–0.89) times as great that amalgam will be placed. When the restoration includes the mesial or distal surface of the tooth the odds for amalgam restoration are 2.49 (95% CI=1.25–4.95) times higher compared to when it does not include these surfaces. Conclusion Restorative material choice varied based on caries location and practitioner gender.

Secondary caries, mind the gap!

“…This implicates that the choice of restoration material used, was dependent upon the time period and not on cavity design unlike other studies (Lubisich et al, 2011). The two operators in this practice had a conservative approach towards caries treatment.…”

Dentists' perspective on preference for direct restorative materials for different tooth cavities: A study from two colleges in Kathmandu, Nepal

“…molar or premolar, maxillary or mandibular, paths and areas of occlusal forces and patient's preference have not taken into consideration while conducting the study 8 as dentist and practice properties (gender of practitioner, years since graduation and type of practice), patient properties (sex, race, age and dental insurance status); and caries characteristics (tooth location and surface, preoperative and postoperative lesion depth) are associated with the type of restorative material used 19,23 . So, in this study, results are based entirely on the dentists' individual perception and experience and represent their perspective on different fi lling materials for different tooth cavities in permanent teeth.…”

Intraoral pH measurement of carious lesions with qPCR of cariogenic bacteria to differentiate caries activity

“…These factors include the location of caries, oral hygiene, dietary habits and salivary condition. 43 Moreover, immature superficial enamel and dentine structures 44 and dietary habits increase the caries risk for young subjects resulting in more active carious lesions. 32 In the present study, it was demonstrated that measuring the pH of the carious lesion might serve as an indicator for real-time caries activity diagnosis, and facilitate follow up on non-surgical treatments and monitoring of arrested lesions where a recurrence is probable.…”