BACKGROUND: Objectives were to determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown and document crown remake rates. METHODS: The authors developed a questionnaire that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. The authors showed dentists photographs of 4 impressions and asked them to accept or reject each impression. The authors correlated answers with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory use and crown remake rates. RESULTS: The response rate was 83% (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the 4 impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85% agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 52% accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was associated significantly with the clinician's sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produced 18 crowns per month on average, and 9% used in-office milling. Most dentists (59%) reported a remake rate of less than 2%, whereas 17% reported a remake rate greater than 4%. Lower remake rates were associated significantly with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. CONCLUSIONS: Although dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (> 85%), nonclinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques with those in this sample when developing best practice protocols.
BACKGROUND: Objectives were to determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown and document crown remake rates. METHODS: The authors developed a questionnaire that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. The authors showed dentists photographs of 4 impressions and asked them to accept or reject each impression. The authors correlated answers with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory use and crown remake rates. RESULTS: The response rate was 83% (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the 4 impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85% agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 52% accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was associated significantly with the clinician's sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produced 18 crowns per month on average, and 9% used in-office milling. Most dentists (59%) reported a remake rate of less than 2%, whereas 17% reported a remake rate greater than 4%. Lower remake rates were associated significantly with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. CONCLUSIONS: Although dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (> 85%), nonclinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques with those in this sample when developing best practice protocols.
Authors: Christopher T Chan; Cortino Sukotjo; Kenneth W Gehrke; Judy Chia-Chun Yuan; Stephen D Campbell; David M Clark; Farhad Fayz Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Michael S McCracken; David R Louis; Mark S Litaker; Helena M Minyé; Rahma Mungia; Valeria V Gordan; Don G Marshall; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Valeria V Gordan; Cynthia W Garvan; Joshua S Richman; Jeffrey L Fellows; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Marc W Heft; O Dale Williams; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: Wynne E Norton; Ellen Funkhouser; Sonia K Makhija; Valeria V Gordan; James D Bader; D Brad Rindal; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Thomas J Hilton; Julie Frantsve-Hawley; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Michael S McCracken; Mark S Litaker; Valeria V Gordan; Thomas Karr; Ellen Sowell; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Helena M Minyé; Gregg H Gilbert; Mark S Litaker; Rahma Mungia; Cyril Meyerowitz; David R Louis; Alan Slootsky; Valeria V Gordan; Michael S McCracken Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Nathaniel C Lawson; Mark S Litaker; Ellen Sowell; Valeria V Gordan; Rahma Mungia; Kenneth R Ronzo; Ba T Lam; Gregg H Gilbert; Michael S McCracken Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Michael S McCracken; Mark S Litaker; Alexandra E S Thomson; Alan Slootsky; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 2.752