OBJECTIVES: To investigate, by questionnaire, the use and selection of materials and techniques for indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics by dental practitioners in the North West of England and Scotland. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1,000 general dental practitioners selected at random from dentists in Scotland and the North West of England. Non-responders were sent another questionnaire after a period of 4 weeks had elapsed. RESULTS: A total of 701 usable questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 70%. When selecting a material for the core build-up of vital teeth, practitioners used the following materials (%): amalgam (60), dual and light-cured resin composite (54), glass-ionomer cements (47), compomer (29) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (24). Where the use of a post was indicated indirect posts of both precious (67) and non-precious (37) alloys were preferred to prefabricated posts by the majority of practitioners for the restoration of root filled teeth. Direct titanium (14) and stainless steel (14) posts were not used extensively. Impression materials used by the practitioners were as follows: addition-cured silicone (70), condensation-cured silicone (20), polyether (9) and polysulphide (2). Traditional glass-ionomer cements (59) were used for the luting of single and multiple porcelain fused to metal units, with zinc phosphate and polycarboxylate cements (33) being the preferred alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the practitioners surveyed in this study used: amalgam for core build-ups; indirect posts; addition-cured silicone for impressions; and glass-ionomer cements for luting procedures.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate, by questionnaire, the use and selection of materials and techniques for indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics by dental practitioners in the North West of England and Scotland. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1,000 general dental practitioners selected at random from dentists in Scotland and the North West of England. Non-responders were sent another questionnaire after a period of 4 weeks had elapsed. RESULTS: A total of 701 usable questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 70%. When selecting a material for the core build-up of vital teeth, practitioners used the following materials (%): amalgam (60), dual and light-cured resin composite (54), glass-ionomer cements (47), compomer (29) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (24). Where the use of a post was indicated indirect posts of both precious (67) and non-precious (37) alloys were preferred to prefabricated posts by the majority of practitioners for the restoration of root filled teeth. Direct titanium (14) and stainless steel (14) posts were not used extensively. Impression materials used by the practitioners were as follows: addition-cured silicone (70), condensation-cured silicone (20), polyether (9) and polysulphide (2). Traditional glass-ionomer cements (59) were used for the luting of single and multiple porcelain fused to metal units, with zinc phosphate and polycarboxylate cements (33) being the preferred alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the practitioners surveyed in this study used: amalgam for core build-ups; indirect posts; addition-cured silicone for impressions; and glass-ionomer cements for luting procedures.
Authors: Michael S McCracken; David R Louis; Mark S Litaker; Helena M Minyé; Thomas Oates; Valeria V Gordan; Don G Marshall; Cyril Meyerowitz; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 2.752