Do clinical experience time and postgraduate training influence the choice of materials for posterior restorations? Results of a survey with Brazilian general dentists.

The aims of this study were to evaluate the materials available for posterior restorations and to assess whether clinical experience time and post-graduate training influence dentists' choices. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire with closed questions applied to dentists (n=276) of a mid-sized city of the southern Brazil. Information was collected regarding sociodemographic variables, level of specialization, time since graduation and working place. In addition, options regarding posterior restorations including the first choice of material, type of composite resin (if used) and use of rubber dam were also collected data. Data were submitted to descriptive analysis and the associations were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests (α=0.05). The response rate was 68% (187). Direct composite resin was broadly indicated (73.2%) as the first-choice for posterior restorations. Most professionals used microhybrid composite (74.5%) and 42.6% of the participants used rubber dam for placement of posterior composite restorations. Dentists with more time of clinical practice used less composite (p=0.014). Specialists used more frequently rubber dam to restore posterior teeth than did non-specialists (p=0.006). The results of this survey revealed that direct composite was the first choice of dentists for posterior restorations; microhybrid was the preferred type of composite and the use of rubber dam for composite resin placement in posterior teeth was not frequent; time since graduation and level of specialization affected dentists' choices.

[1]  F. Demarco,et al.  Anterior composite restorations in clinical practice: findings from a survey with general dental practitioners , 2013, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[2]  B. Horta,et al.  Do socioeconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach. , 2013, Journal of dentistry.

[3]  N. Opdam,et al.  Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth? , 2013, Journal of dentistry.

[4]  M. Conde,et al.  Preferences on vital and nonvital tooth bleaching: a survey among dentists from a city of southern Brazil. , 2013, Brazilian dental journal.

[5]  N. Opdam,et al.  Patient Risk Factors’ Influence on Survival of Posterior Composites , 2013, Journal of dental research.

[6]  M. Litaker,et al.  Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the dental PBRN. , 2013, Texas dental journal.

[7]  B. Horta,et al.  Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. , 2012, Journal of dentistry.

[8]  P. C. Saquy,et al.  Effect of different surface penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller composite resin. , 2012, Brazilian dental journal.

[9]  N. Opdam,et al.  Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. , 2012, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[10]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[11]  C. Lynch,et al.  Minimally invasive management of dental caries: contemporary teaching of posterior resin-based composite placement in U.S. and Canadian dental schools. , 2011, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[12]  J. Ferracane,et al.  Association between caries location and restorative material treatment provided. , 2011, Journal of dentistry.

[13]  E. Piva,et al.  Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students. , 2011, Brazilian dental journal.

[14]  Jack L Ferracane,et al.  Resin composite--state of the art. , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[15]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  12-year Survival of Composite vs. Amalgam Restorations , 2010, Journal of dental research.

[16]  C. Lynch,et al.  Placement of posterior composite restorations in United Kingdom dental practices: techniques, problems, and attitudes. , 2009, International dental journal.

[17]  Leiv Sandvik,et al.  Factors influencing dentists’ choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients , 2009, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[18]  R. Kovarik Restoration of posterior teeth in clinical practice: evidence base for choosing amalgam versus composite. , 2009, Dental clinics of North America.

[19]  C. Lynch,et al.  Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. , 2007, International endodontic journal.

[20]  F. Demarco,et al.  Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different types of resin-based composites. , 2007, Brazilian oral research.

[21]  C. Lynch,et al.  Teaching the placement of posterior resin-based composite restorations in U.S. dental schools. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[22]  B. Loomans,et al.  The amalgam-free dental school. , 2004, Journal of dentistry.

[23]  W. Sperr,et al.  Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review , 2003, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[24]  U. Pallesen,et al.  Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation , 2003, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[25]  I. Mjör,et al.  The teaching of Class I and Class II direct composite restorations in European dental schools. , 2000, Journal of dentistry.