OBJECTIVE: A baseline audit of current levels of knowledge about, and use of, restorative techniques in children's primary molars. DESIGN: A survey of community dental officers. SETTING: Two large Trusts in Wales. SAMPLE: Eighteen dental officers (five from Trust A and 13 from Trust B) from a total of 23 (six from Trust A and 17 from Trust B). OUTCOME MEASURES: Dental officers' use of restorative materials in primary molars. Dental officers' participation in postgraduate training for restorative techniques. Dental officers' consideration of the research literature on 'best practice' in restorative techniques. RESULTS: Dental officers in these two Trusts were not using stainless steel crowns (SSCs) for restoring primary molars. All 18 dental officers reported using glass ionomer cement (GIC) and amalgam as restorative materials, whilst six reported using GIC exclusively. Only 11 dentists mentioned using stainless steel crowns and this was in conjunction with carrying out a pulpotomy. Fewer dentists had been taught to use GIC than either SSCs or amalgam for restoring primary teeth during undergraduate training. A hands-on, user-friendly, postgraduate training course is considered the most effective way of teaching dentists about restorative techniques. The research evidence on SSCs did not appear to influence these dental officers in their use of restorative materials. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers important baseline data about the acceptability of differing restorative techniques and about the type of intervention that could bring about change in pattern of use by community dental officers in two large Trusts in Wales. If a postgraduate course in the use of stainless steel crowns is to meet dental officers' needs, it should address their concerns about the use of crowns.
OBJECTIVE: A baseline audit of current levels of knowledge about, and use of, restorative techniques in children's primary molars. DESIGN: A survey of community dental officers. SETTING: Two large Trusts in Wales. SAMPLE: Eighteen dental officers (five from Trust A and 13 from Trust B) from a total of 23 (six from Trust A and 17 from Trust B). OUTCOME MEASURES: Dental officers' use of restorative materials in primary molars. Dental officers' participation in postgraduate training for restorative techniques. Dental officers' consideration of the research literature on 'best practice' in restorative techniques. RESULTS: Dental officers in these two Trusts were not using stainless steel crowns (SSCs) for restoring primary molars. All 18 dental officers reported using glass ionomer cement (GIC) and amalgam as restorative materials, whilst six reported using GIC exclusively. Only 11 dentists mentioned using stainless steel crowns and this was in conjunction with carrying out a pulpotomy. Fewer dentists had been taught to use GIC than either SSCs or amalgam for restoring primary teeth during undergraduate training. A hands-on, user-friendly, postgraduate training course is considered the most effective way of teaching dentists about restorative techniques. The research evidence on SSCs did not appear to influence these dental officers in their use of restorative materials. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers important baseline data about the acceptability of differing restorative techniques and about the type of intervention that could bring about change in pattern of use by community dental officers in two large Trusts in Wales. If a postgraduate course in the use of stainless steel crowns is to meet dental officers' needs, it should address their concerns about the use of crowns.
Authors: Nicola P T Innes; David Ricketts; Lee Yee Chong; Alexander J Keightley; Thomas Lamont; Ruth M Santamaria Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-31