OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a study to identify and quantify the reasons used by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) for placing restorations on unrestored permanent tooth surfaces and the dental materials they used in doing so. METHODS: A total of 229 DPBRN practitioner-investigators provided data from their practices regarding 9,890 consecutive restorations in 5,810 patients. Information the practitioner-investigators provided included their reasons for restoring the teeth, the specific teeth and surfaces they restored and the restorative materials they used. RESULTS: Primary caries (85 percent of teeth, 8,351 of 9,890) and noncarious defects (15 percent, 1,479 of 9,890) were the main reasons participants gave for placing restorations. Participants placed restorations necessitated by caries most frequently on occlusal surfaces (49 percent, 4,091 of 8,351). They used amalgam for 47 percent of the molar restorations and 45 percent of the premolar restorations. They used directly placed resin-based composite (RBC) for 48 percent of the molar restorations, 50 percent of the premolar restorations and 93 percent of the anterior restorations. CONCLUSION: DPBRN practitioner-investigators cited dental caries on occlusal and proximal surfaces of molar teeth as the main reasons for placing restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces. RBC was the material they used most commonly for occlusal and anterior restorations. Amalgam remains the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries, although the authors noted significant differences in the use of amalgam and RBC by dentists in various regions of the DPBRN.
OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a study to identify and quantify the reasons used by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) for placing restorations on unrestored permanent tooth surfaces and the dental materials they used in doing so. METHODS: A total of 229 DPBRN practitioner-investigators provided data from their practices regarding 9,890 consecutive restorations in 5,810 patients. Information the practitioner-investigators provided included their reasons for restoring the teeth, the specific teeth and surfaces they restored and the restorative materials they used. RESULTS:Primary caries (85 percent of teeth, 8,351 of 9,890) and noncarious defects (15 percent, 1,479 of 9,890) were the main reasons participants gave for placing restorations. Participants placed restorations necessitated by caries most frequently on occlusal surfaces (49 percent, 4,091 of 8,351). They used amalgam for 47 percent of the molar restorations and 45 percent of the premolar restorations. They used directly placed resin-based composite (RBC) for 48 percent of the molar restorations, 50 percent of the premolar restorations and 93 percent of the anterior restorations. CONCLUSION:DPBRN practitioner-investigators cited dental caries on occlusal and proximal surfaces of molar teeth as the main reasons for placing restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces. RBC was the material they used most commonly for occlusal and anterior restorations. Amalgam remains the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries, although the authors noted significant differences in the use of amalgam and RBC by dentists in various regions of the DPBRN.
Authors: Gregg H Gilbert; Vibeke Qvist; Sheila D Moore; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Valeria V Gordan; O Dale Williams Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2010 Impact factor: 1.821
Authors: Marcelle M Nascimento; James D Bader; Vibeke Qvist; Mark S Litaker; O Dale Williams; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Gregg H Gilbert; Valeria V Gordan Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: Marcelle M Nascimento; Valeria V Gordan; Vibeke Qvist; James D Bader; D Brad Rindal; O Dale Williams; Daniel Gewartowski; Jeffrey L Fellows; Mark S Litaker; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Sonia K Makhija; Valeria V Gordan; Gregg H Gilbert; Mark S Litaker; D Brad Rindal; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Vibeke Qvist Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Gene E Watson; Miranda Lynch; Gary J Myers; Conrad F Shamlaye; Sally W Thurston; Grazyna Zareba; Thomas W Clarkson; Philip W Davidson Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Tim J Heaven; Valeria V Gordan; Mark S Litaker; Jeffrey L Fellows; D Brad Rindal; Allen R Firestone; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Dent Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Gene E Watson; Edwin van Wijngaarden; Tanzy M T Love; Emeir M McSorley; Maxine P Bonham; Maria S Mulhern; Alison J Yeates; Philip W Davidson; Conrad F Shamlaye; J J Strain; Sally W Thurston; Donald Harrington; Grazyna Zareba; Julie M W Wallace; Gary J Myers Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2013-07-13 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Gene E Watson; Katie Evans; Sally W Thurston; Edwin van Wijngaarden; Julie M W Wallace; Emeir M McSorley; Maxine P Bonham; Maria S Mulhern; Alison J McAfee; Philip W Davidson; Conrad F Shamlaye; J J Strain; Tanzy Love; Grazyna Zareba; Gary J Myers Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Jeffrey L Fellows; Valeria V Gordan; Gregg H Gilbert; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Mark S Litaker; Paul Benjamin; Håkan Flink; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Neil Johnson Journal: Am J Dent Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.522