STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The increasing trend toward esthetics has led to controversy as to the longevity of esthetic restorations and the wisdom of having traditional restorations replaced for esthetic reasons. With the assumption that the way dentists treat their own teeth may be a good indication of the accumulated wisdom of the profession, knowledge of dentists' own restorative choices may provide guidance in selecting the most appropriate restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to determine restorative choices of dentists for personal molars and estimate restoration longevity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Information about dentists' molars was obtained from a Web-based survey designed to receive dentists' demographic data and charting of 8 molar teeth with estimated longevity. Approximately 12,000 e-mails asking to access the website were sent to dentists' addresses randomly selected from a commercial database. Nonrespondents received 1 reminder. The responses were statistically analyzed with a chi-square analysis (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-seven valid replies provided information for 6,034 teeth (22% unrestored, 75% restored, 2% missing). Restorations reported included amalgam (36%), gold inlay/onlay (13%), complete veneer crown (CVC) (10%), metal-ceramic crown (MCC) (8%), and composite (7%). Other esthetic options accounted for less than 3%. Restorations with more than 20 years longevity included amalgam restorations (58%), gold inlays/onlays (48%) and crowns (23%). Fifty-six percent of esthetic restorations and 5% of amalgams were placed in the last 5 years. The following restorations were placed in the last year (n=186): 38% esthetic, 29% crowns (18% MCC; 11% CVC), and 17% gold inlay/onlay or amalgam. Significant differences (P<.001) were identified for dentist's gender, year of graduation and practice location. CONCLUSIONS: Most dentists have not replaced traditional metallic restorations with esthetic alternatives. Dentists still choose nonesthetic options for significant numbers of their own restorations.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The increasing trend toward esthetics has led to controversy as to the longevity of esthetic restorations and the wisdom of having traditional restorations replaced for esthetic reasons. With the assumption that the way dentists treat their own teeth may be a good indication of the accumulated wisdom of the profession, knowledge of dentists' own restorative choices may provide guidance in selecting the most appropriate restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to determine restorative choices of dentists for personal molars and estimate restoration longevity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Information about dentists' molars was obtained from a Web-based survey designed to receive dentists' demographic data and charting of 8 molar teeth with estimated longevity. Approximately 12,000 e-mails asking to access the website were sent to dentists' addresses randomly selected from a commercial database. Nonrespondents received 1 reminder. The responses were statistically analyzed with a chi-square analysis (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-seven valid replies provided information for 6,034 teeth (22% unrestored, 75% restored, 2% missing). Restorations reported included amalgam (36%), gold inlay/onlay (13%), complete veneer crown (CVC) (10%), metal-ceramic crown (MCC) (8%), and composite (7%). Other esthetic options accounted for less than 3%. Restorations with more than 20 years longevity included amalgam restorations (58%), gold inlays/onlays (48%) and crowns (23%). Fifty-six percent of esthetic restorations and 5% of amalgams were placed in the last 5 years. The following restorations were placed in the last year (n=186): 38% esthetic, 29% crowns (18% MCC; 11% CVC), and 17% gold inlay/onlay or amalgam. Significant differences (P<.001) were identified for dentist's gender, year of graduation and practice location. CONCLUSIONS: Most dentists have not replaced traditional metallic restorations with esthetic alternatives. Dentists still choose nonesthetic options for significant numbers of their own restorations.
Authors: A Alani; M Kelleher; K Hemmings; M Saunders; M Hunter; S Barclay; M Ashley; S Djemal; K Bishop; U Darbar; P Briggs; J Fearne Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 1.626