L A Tran1, L Brearley Messer. 1. Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Science, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been an expansion in the range of tooth-coloured restorative materials available. In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended clinicians use alternatives to amalgam in children 'where appropriate'. METHODS: A three-part 29-item questionnaire was developed, tested in a focus group, and distributed to members of the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AA; paediatric dentists and paediatric dentistry postgraduate students; n=55), and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry, Victorian Branch (SPD; general dentists and dental therapists; n=50). Participant information, material choices, and six hypothetical clinical scenarios were addressed. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74 per cent. For both groups, the first ranked factor influencing choice of restorative material for vital primary teeth was child age, and caries experience for vital first permanent molars. For moderate-sized Class I and II restorations in primary molars, a tooth-coloured material was chosen by 92 and 84 per cent respondents respectively. For restoring two separate proximal lesions in a primary molar, 65 per cent chose a tooth-coloured material followed by a stainless steel crown (27 per cent; all AA members), then amalgam (8 per cent). The SPD respondents were significantly more likely to choose glass ionomer cement for Class I and II restorations and for restoring two proximal lesions (all p=0.000) in primary molars than AA respondents, who were more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns for these restorations. Younger respondents (21-40 years) were significantly more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns (p=0.048) than older respondents (41-65 years), who were likely to choose glass ionomer cement. CONCLUSIONS: For Class I and II restorations in primary molars, glass ionomer cement was the material chosen most frequently (SPD respondents); preference for amalgam or stainless steel crowns was low (both SPD and AA groups). The wide range of materials chosen for the hypothetical clinical scenarios suggests the need for guidelines on selection of restorative materials, and the need for longitudinal studies to follow actual clinical outcomes of the materials chosen.
BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been an expansion in the range of tooth-coloured restorative materials available. In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended clinicians use alternatives to amalgam in children 'where appropriate'. METHODS: A three-part 29-item questionnaire was developed, tested in a focus group, and distributed to members of the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AA; paediatric dentists and paediatric dentistry postgraduate students; n=55), and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry, Victorian Branch (SPD; general dentists and dental therapists; n=50). Participant information, material choices, and six hypothetical clinical scenarios were addressed. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74 per cent. For both groups, the first ranked factor influencing choice of restorative material for vital primary teeth was child age, and caries experience for vital first permanent molars. For moderate-sized Class I and II restorations in primary molars, a tooth-coloured material was chosen by 92 and 84 per cent respondents respectively. For restoring two separate proximal lesions in a primary molar, 65 per cent chose a tooth-coloured material followed by a stainless steel crown (27 per cent; all AA members), then amalgam (8 per cent). The SPD respondents were significantly more likely to choose glass ionomer cement for Class I and II restorations and for restoring two proximal lesions (all p=0.000) in primary molars than AA respondents, who were more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns for these restorations. Younger respondents (21-40 years) were significantly more likely to choose composite resins/compomers or amalgam/stainless steel crowns (p=0.048) than older respondents (41-65 years), who were likely to choose glass ionomer cement. CONCLUSIONS: For Class I and II restorations in primary molars, glass ionomer cement was the material chosen most frequently (SPD respondents); preference for amalgam or stainless steel crowns was low (both SPD and AA groups). The wide range of materials chosen for the hypothetical clinical scenarios suggests the need for guidelines on selection of restorative materials, and the need for longitudinal studies to follow actual clinical outcomes of the materials chosen.
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
Authors: G Mark Richardson; Scott R Clemow; Rachel E Peters; Kyle J James; Steven D Siciliano Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: N P T Innes; D J P Evans; C C Bonifacio; M Geneser; D Hesse; M Heimer; M Kanellis; V Machiulskiene; J Narbutaité; I C Olegário; A Owais; M P Araujo; D P Raggio; C Splieth; E van Amerongen; K Weber-Gasparoni; R M Santamaria Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 1.626