Reasons for Placement of Restorations on Previously Unrestored Tooth Surfaces by Dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Nascimento, Marcelle M.; Gordan, Valeria V.; Qvist, Vibeke; Litaker, Mark S.; Rindal, D. Brad; Williams, O. Dale; Fellows, Jeffrey L.; Ritchie, Lloyd K.; Mjör, Ivar A.; McClelland, Jocelyn; Gilbert, Gregg H.

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0197

Cited by 33 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the use of other filling materials such as GIC and compomer was less than 4%. This is in accordance with a recent study showing that other materials than amalgam and resin composite were preferred by only 5% of 229 US dentists when placing restorations in premolars [Nascimento et al, 2010].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Occlusal Caries Management: Preferences among Dentists in Norway

Kopperud

Tveit²,

Opdam³

et al. 2016

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to measure variations in the threshold for operative treatment of occlusal caries in permanent teeth and the use of dental materials, compared with results from a similar study conducted in Norway in 1995. In 2009, a precoded questionnaire was sent electronically to 3,654 dentists with E-mail addresses in the member register of the Norwegian Dental Association. The questions were related to caries, treatment strategies and choice of dental materials. Replies were obtained from 61.3% respondents after two reminders. Restorative treatment of occlusal lesions confined to enamel was proposed by 12% of the dentists, compared with 18% in 1995 (p < 0.01). Older dentists more often than younger dentists would operatively treat enamel lesions (p < 0.01). Most dentists preferred to drill only the carious part of the fissure rather than the whole fissure both in 2009 (78.8%) and 1995 (68.3%; p < 0.01). In 2009, 91.9% preferred composite as the restorative material of choice, compared to only 39.1% in 1995. Logistic regression analyses identified higher age of the dentist as the only variable significantly associated with higher risk of restoring occlusal enamel lesions operatively. The authors conclude that especially young dentists appear to be more reluctant to remove tooth substance in 2009 compared with 1995. Composite is the dominating material of choice in 2009 and seems to have substituted the use of most other filling materials in occlusal restorations in permanent teeth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Occlusal Caries Management: Preferences among Dentists in Norway

Kopperud

Tveit²,

Opdam³

et al. 2016

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study the use of other filling materials such as GIC and compomer was less than 4%. This is in accordance with a recent study showing that other materials than amalgam and resin composite were preferred by only 5% of 229 dentists when placing restorations in premolars [Nascimento et al, 2010].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Changes in the Treatment Concept for Approximal Caries from 1983 to 2009 in Norway

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to measure variations in threshold for operative treatment of approximal caries in permanent teeth and the use of restorative materials, compared with results from studies conducted in Norway in 1983 and 1995. In 2009, a precoded questionnaire was sent electronically to 3,654 dentists with E-mail addresses in the member register of the Norwegian Dental Association. The questions were related to caries, treatment strategies and choice of dental materials. Replies were obtained from 61% of the dentists after two reminders. Restorative treatment of approximal lesions confined to enamel, based on radiographic appearance, was proposed by 7% of the dentists, compared with 66% in 1983 and 18% in 1995. Younger dentists, significantly more often than older, would defer operative treatment of approximal lesions until the lesion was visible in dentine. While tunnel preparation most often was the preparation of choice in 1995 (47%), saucer-shaped preparation was most favoured in 2009 (69%). Tunnel preparation was only preferred by 4% of the dentists. Resin composite was the restorative material preferred by 95%, compared with 16% in 1995. The corresponding values for conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) were 1 versus 22%, for resin-modified GIC 1 versus 7%, and for a combination of GIC and resin composite 2 versus 22%. Compomer was preferred by 1% of the respondents. The authors conclude that treatment concepts for approximal caries have changed considerably during the last 26 years. In 2009, only 7% of dentists reported that they would treat approximal caries operatively before the lesion reached dentine.

show abstract

“…However, within a public system of care (VA), there is no incentive to replace restorations unnecessarily. Further, Nascimento et al (20) found that among private practice providers, 85% of all restorations placed in permanent, previously unrestored teeth were due to caries. Studies evaluating restoration survival rates of direct restorations (amalgam and composite resin) have demonstrated that most restorations are replaced due to recurrent caries (21)(22)(23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%