A S M Gilmour1, P Evans, L D Addy. 1. Senior Lecturer/Honorary Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, Cardiff University Dental Hospital, Heath Park, Heath, Cardiff, CF14 4XY. gilmour@cardiff.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions and current methods used in placing posterior composite restorations by general dental practitioners. SETTING: The study was completed by general dental practitioners randomly selected from across the UK. METHOD: A questionnaire was devised to gain this information. It was sent to 500 UK dentists chosen at random from the general dental register, with an explanatory letter and reply-paid envelope. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-seven replies were received. Sixty-one percent of dentists felt amalgam use had decreased over the last five years, 75% felt posterior composite use had increased. Regarding choice of posterior material, almost all cited clinical indication as the most influential factor while patient's aesthetic demands (89%),wish for a certain material (78%) and the dentist's confidence using a certain restorative material (76%) were contributing factors. Regarding the techniques used, contemporary techniques were employed although there was confusion regarding the need for rubber dam and the most appropriate method of lining the cavity. A case scenario of a pregnant patient who required treatment found that 66% of respondents would place a restoration other than a temporary dressing, with 16% placing an amalgam restoration. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dentists surveyed place load bearing posterior composite restorations regularly. Their choice of restorative material is influenced by clinical indications and the patient's aesthetic demands. The techniques used were appropriate, although there was confusion around the need for rubber dam and the most appropriate method to line the cavity. There was also confusion in relation to the most appropriate materials for use in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions and current methods used in placing posterior composite restorations by general dental practitioners. SETTING: The study was completed by general dental practitioners randomly selected from across the UK. METHOD: A questionnaire was devised to gain this information. It was sent to 500 UK dentists chosen at random from the general dental register, with an explanatory letter and reply-paid envelope. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-seven replies were received. Sixty-one percent of dentists felt amalgam use had decreased over the last five years, 75% felt posterior composite use had increased. Regarding choice of posterior material, almost all cited clinical indication as the most influential factor while patient's aesthetic demands (89%),wish for a certain material (78%) and the dentist's confidence using a certain restorative material (76%) were contributing factors. Regarding the techniques used, contemporary techniques were employed although there was confusion regarding the need for rubber dam and the most appropriate method of lining the cavity. A case scenario of a pregnant patient who required treatment found that 66% of respondents would place a restoration other than a temporary dressing, with 16% placing an amalgam restoration. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dentists surveyed place load bearing posterior composite restorations regularly. Their choice of restorative material is influenced by clinical indications and the patient's aesthetic demands. The techniques used were appropriate, although there was confusion around the need for rubber dam and the most appropriate method to line the cavity. There was also confusion in relation to the most appropriate materials for use in pregnancy.