Re-Treatment Decisions for Failed Posterior Restorations Among Dentists in Kuwait

Overview

Journal Eur J Dent

Publisher Thieme

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2010 Jan 5

PMID 20046479

Citations 1

Authors

Qasem Alomari

Bader Al-Kanderi

Muawia Qudeimat

Ridwaan Omar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare re-treatment choices for MOD amalgam or resin composite restorations with or without cusp fracture among dentists in Kuwait.

Methods: A random sample of 158 dentists completed a questionnaire designed to obtain socio-demographic, educational and work-related information and their choices for re-treatment of four scenarios of failed restorations on lower first molars: 1. MOD amalgam restoration; 2. MOD composite restoration; 3. MOD amalgam restoration with cuspal fracture; 4. MOD composite restoration with cuspal fracture. Re-treatment options were: re-treating with amalgam; re-treating with composite; placing an onlay; or, placing a crown. For the purpose of analysis, responses were dichotomized into re-treatment with a direct or indirect restoration.

Results: For cases 1 and 2, most participants chose to re-treat with amalgam restoration and for cases 3 and 4, most chose to place an indirect restoration. In general, an increased tendency towards the indirect option was associated with increased age, being a male and being a specialist. Tendencies to place an indirect restoration did not differ between cases 1 and 2 (P=1.0) or cases 3 and 4 (P=0.317), although the tendency to do so was significantly greater in case 3 than 1 (P=0.000) and case 4 than 2 (P=0.000).

Conclusions: The variation noted among dentists regarding their stated choices for re-treating failed posterior restorations appeared to be associated with gender, education and experience factors. A tendency towards indirect restorations was seen when the restoration is associated with a fractured cusp.

Citing Articles

Mechanical properties of direct and indirect composites after storage for 24 hours and 10 months.

Alves P, Brandt W, Neves A, Cunha L, Silva-Concilio L Eur J Dent. 2013; 7(1):117-22.

PMID: 23407869 PMC: 3571519.

References

Brennan D, Spencer A . The role of dentist, practice and patient factors in the provision of dental services. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005; 33(3):181-95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00207.x. View

McDaniel R, Davis R, Murchison D, Cohen R . Causes of failure among cuspal-coverage amalgam restorations: a clinical survey. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131(2):173-7. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0144. View

Heinikainen M, Vehkalahti M, Murtomaa H . Re-treatment decisions for failed posterior fillings by Finnish general practitioners. Community Dent Health. 2002; 19(2):98-103. View

Lewis D . Restorative decision making by Ontario dentists. J Can Dent Assoc. 1994; 60(4):305-10, 313-6. View

Kronstrom M, Palmqvist S, Soderfeldt B, Eriksson T, Carlsson G . Congruence between self-reported and actually provided prosthodontic services among Swedish dentists. Acta Odontol Scand. 1999; 57(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1080/000163599429048. View

Bader J, Shugars D . What do we know about how dentists make caries-related treatment decisions?. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997; 25(1):97-103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00905.x. View

Maupome G, Sheiham A . Clinical decision-making in restorative dentistry. Content-analysis of diagnostic thinking processes and concurrent concepts used in an educational environment. Eur J Dent Educ. 2001; 4(4):143-52. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2000.040401.x. View

Kay E, Blinkhorn A . A qualitative investigation of factors governing dentists' treatment philosophies. Br Dent J. 1996; 180(5):171-6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809010. View

Kolker J, Damiano P, Jones M, Dawson D, Caplan D, Armstrong S . The timing of subsequent treatment for teeth restored with large amalgams and crowns: factors related to the need for subsequent treatment. J Dent Res. 2004; 83(11):854-8. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408301106. View

10.

Bader J, Martin J, Shugars D . Incidence rates for complete cusp fracture. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001; 29(5):346-53. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290504.x. View

11.

Traebert J, Marcenes W, Kreutz J, Oliveira R, Piazza C, Peres M . Brazilian dentists' restorative treatment decisions. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2005; 3(1):53-60. View

12.

Friedl K, Hiller K, Schmalz G . Placement and replacement of composite restorations in Germany. Oper Dent. 1995; 20(1):34-8. View

13.

Witter D, Kreulen C, Creugers N . Fracture risk judgment and crown indication by teachers in a dental school: a pilot study. Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18(2):161-2. View

14.

Brennan D, Spencer A . Longitudinal comparison of factors influencing choice of dental treatment by private general practitioners. Aust Dent J. 2006; 51(2):117-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00414.x. View

15.

Mjor I, Moorhead J, Dahl J . Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J. 2001; 50(6):361-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2000.tb00569.x. View

16.

Kolker J, Damiano P, Caplan D, Armstrong S, Dawson D, Jones M . Teeth with large amalgam restorations and crowns: factors affecting the receipt of subsequent treatment after 10 years. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136(6):738-48. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0257. View

17.

Soderfeldt B, Palmqvist S, Eriksson T, Kronstrom M, Carlsson G . A questionnaire instrument to assess clinical decision-making in prosthodontics among general practitioners. Acta Odontol Scand. 1996; 54(5):314-9. DOI: 10.3109/00016359609003544. View

18.

Knutsson K, Lysell L, Rohlin M . Dentists' judgment strategies on prophylactic removal of mandibular third molars. J Dent Res. 2001; 79(12):1989-95. DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790121101. View

19.

Marinho V, Richards D, Niederman R . Variation, certainty, evidence, and change in dental education: employing evidence-based dentistry in dental education. J Dent Educ. 2001; 65(5):449-55. View

20.

Narby B, Kronstrom M, Soderfeldt B, Palmqvist S . Prosthodontics and the patient: what is oral rehabilitation need? Conceptual analysis of need and demand for prosthodontic treatment. Part 1: a conceptual analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18(1):75-9. View