Byy Chai1, Byx Tay1, Cyt Chow1, J Fuss2, U Krishnan1. 1. School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a global disparity in managing deep caries lesions and evidence-based strategies are not always followed. The aim of this study was to gain insight into current practices of Australian dentists for deep caries management and to determine their procedural and materials choices. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to 1988 randomly selected practitioners across Australia asking their choice of treatment in a tooth showing symptoms of reversible pulpitis and deep caries. A total of 255 (12.6%) practitioners responded. RESULTS: About 85% of respondents chose selective caries removal to selective removal (SR) while 15% chose non-selective removal to hard dentine. Respondents whose preferred approach was SR had greater odds in believing that incomplete caries removal alone would not have any effect on pulp vitality (OR = 5.20) and had greater odds of thinking that peripheral seal was more important than other factors (OR = 3.50). They also had lesser odds of believing that placing a liner would reduce postoperative sensitivity (OR = 0.269) and lesser odds of thinking that removal of all bacteria or carious dentine was important when placing a restoration (OR = 0.196). CONCLUSION: Most Australian dentists reported practising evidence-based carious tissue removal strategies and accepted the concept of selectively leaving carious dentine under a sealed restoration.
BACKGROUND: There is a global disparity in managing deep caries lesions and evidence-based strategies are not always followed. The aim of this study was to gain insight into current practices of Australian dentists for deep caries management and to determine their procedural and materials choices. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to 1988 randomly selected practitioners across Australia asking their choice of treatment in a tooth showing symptoms of reversible pulpitis and deep caries. A total of 255 (12.6%) practitioners responded. RESULTS: About 85% of respondents chose selective caries removal to selective removal (SR) while 15% chose non-selective removal to hard dentine. Respondents whose preferred approach was SR had greater odds in believing that incomplete caries removal alone would not have any effect on pulp vitality (OR = 5.20) and had greater odds of thinking that peripheral seal was more important than other factors (OR = 3.50). They also had lesser odds of believing that placing a liner would reduce postoperative sensitivity (OR = 0.269) and lesser odds of thinking that removal of all bacteria or carious dentine was important when placing a restoration (OR = 0.196). CONCLUSION: Most Australian dentists reported practising evidence-based carious tissue removal strategies and accepted the concept of selectively leaving carious dentine under a sealed restoration.