Helena M Minyé1, Gregg H Gilbert2, Mark S Litaker2, Rahma Mungia3, Cyril Meyerowitz4, David R Louis5, Alan Slootsky6, Valeria V Gordan7, Michael S McCracken2. 1. Private practice of general dentistry, Odessa and Fort Worth, TX. 2. Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 3. Department of Periodontics University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. 4. Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 5. Private practice of general dentistry with HealthPartners, Woodbury, MN. 6. Private practice of general dentistry, Pompano Beach, FL. 7. Restorative Dental Sciences Department, Operative Dentistry Division, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which preparation techniques clinicians use in routine clinical practice for single-unit crown restorations; (2) test whether certain practice, dentist, and patient characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in a questionnaire regarding preparation techniques, dental equipment used for single-unit crown preparations, scheduled chair time, occlusal clearance determination, location of finish lines, magnification during preparation, supplemental lighting, shade selection, use of intraoral photographs, and trimming dies. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: Of the 2132 eligible dentists, 1777 (83%) responded to the survey. The top two margin configuration choices for single-unit crown preparation for posterior crowns were chamfer/heavy chamfer (65%) and shoulder (23%). For anterior crowns, the most prevalent choices were the chamfer (54%) and the shoulder (37%) configurations. Regarding shade selection, a combination of dentist, assistant, and patient input was used to select anterior shades 59% of the time. Photographs are used to communicate shade selection with the laboratory in about half of esthetically demanding cases. The ideal finish line was located at the crest of gingival tissue for 49% of respondents; 29% preferred 1 mm below the crest; and 22% preferred the finish line above the crest of tissue. Average chair time scheduled for a crown preparation appointment was 76 ± 21 minutes. Practice and dentist characteristics were significantly associated with margin choice including practice type (p < 0.001), region (p < 0.001), and years since graduation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Network dentists prefer chamfer/heavy chamfer margin designs, followed by shoulder preparations. These choices were related to practice and dentist characteristics.
PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which preparation techniques clinicians use in routine clinical practice for single-unit crown restorations; (2) test whether certain practice, dentist, and patient characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in a questionnaire regarding preparation techniques, dental equipment used for single-unit crown preparations, scheduled chair time, occlusal clearance determination, location of finish lines, magnification during preparation, supplemental lighting, shade selection, use of intraoral photographs, and trimming dies. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: Of the 2132 eligible dentists, 1777 (83%) responded to the survey. The top two margin configuration choices for single-unit crown preparation for posterior crowns were chamfer/heavy chamfer (65%) and shoulder (23%). For anterior crowns, the most prevalent choices were the chamfer (54%) and the shoulder (37%) configurations. Regarding shade selection, a combination of dentist, assistant, and patient input was used to select anterior shades 59% of the time. Photographs are used to communicate shade selection with the laboratory in about half of esthetically demanding cases. The ideal finish line was located at the crest of gingival tissue for 49% of respondents; 29% preferred 1 mm below the crest; and 22% preferred the finish line above the crest of tissue. Average chair time scheduled for a crown preparation appointment was 76 ± 21 minutes. Practice and dentist characteristics were significantly associated with margin choice including practice type (p < 0.001), region (p < 0.001), and years since graduation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Network dentists prefer chamfer/heavy chamfer margin designs, followed by shoulder preparations. These choices were related to practice and dentist characteristics.
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: Gregg H Gilbert; Joshua S Richman; Valeria V Gordan; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Paul L Benjamin; Martha Wallace-Dawson; O Dale Williams Journal: J Dent Educ Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.264
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: Sonia K Makhija; Gregg H Gilbert; D Brad Rindal; Paul Benjamin; Joshua S Richman; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Vibeke Qvist Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 2.757
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