Anterior composite restorations in clinical practice: findings from a survey with general dental practitioners

Flávio Fernando Demarco, Rudimar Antonio Baldissera, Francine Cardozo Madruga, Roberto Cuchiara Simões, Rafael Guerra Lund, Marcos Britto Correa, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Flávio Fernando Demarco, Rudimar Antonio Baldissera, Francine Cardozo Madruga, Roberto Cuchiara Simões, Rafael Guerra Lund, Marcos Britto Correa, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess technical preferences of general dental practitioners when restoring anterior composite restorations. How the level of clinical experience or post-graduate training infuenced their options was also tested.

Material and methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using a questionnaire with general dental practitioners (GDPs) (n=276) in Southern Brazil. Information regarding post graduation training (specialization, master's or PhD degree) and linical experience (years since completing graduation) were gathered. The options regarding anterior composite restorations (type of composite, adhesive system, light curing unit, polishing procedures and rubber dam use) were collected. Data were submitted to descriptive analysis and associations were tested.

Results: Response rate was 68% (187). GDPs selected microhybrid composite (52%) and 2-step total etch adhesive system (77%). LED was the preferred method of activation for 72.8%. Immediate polishing was preferred by 75%, using a combination of techniques. Most of the respondents (74.3%) did not use rubber dam. More experienced clinicians used more halogen lights (p<0.022), performed more light monitoring (p<0.001) and were resistant to use rubber dam (p<0.012). Dentists with post-graduation training used 3-etch-and-rinse system more frequently (p<0.04), usually monitored light intensity (p<0.014) and placed rubber dam more frequently (p<0.044).

Conclusions: Hybrid composite, simplifed adhesives, LED units and immediate polishing were preferred by Southern Brazilian dentists for anterior composite restorations. Few dentists used rubber dam to perform composite restorations in anterior teeth. Clinical experience and post-graduation training infuenced the dentists' choices.

References

    1. Al-Khayatt AS, Ray-Chaudhuri A, Poyser NJ, Briggs PF, Porter RW, Kelleher MG, et al. Direct composite restorations for the worn mandibular anterior dentitiona: a 7-year follow-up of a prospective randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;4(5):389–401.
    1. Baldissera RA, Corrêa MB, Schuch H, Collares K, Nascimento GG, Jardim PS, et al. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth? J Dent. 2013;41(11):1027–1035.
    1. Barbosa SH, Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Nunes OB. Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microflled, hybrid and packable composite resins. Braz Dent J. 2005;16:39–44.
    1. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7:63–70.
    1. Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS, Holder R. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 4): infuence of time and place. J Dent. 2005;33:837–847.
    1. Cenci MS, Venturini D, Pereira-Cenci T, Piva E, Demarco FF. The effect of polishing techniques and time on the surface characteristics and sealing ability of resin composite restorations after one-year storage. Oper Dent. 2008;33:169–176.
    1. Chang HS, Cho KJ, Park SJ, Lee BN, Hwang YC, Oh WM, et al. Thermal analysis of bulk flled composite resin polymerization using various light curing modes according to the curing depth and approximation to the cavity wall. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21:293–299.
    1. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguércio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, et al. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different fller characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011;27:955–963.
    1. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005;84:118–132.
    1. Demarco FF, Conde MCM, Ely C, Torre EM, Costa JRS, Fernández ML, et al. Preferences on vital and nonvital thooth blushing a survey among dentists from a city of Southern Brazil. Braz Dent J. 2013;24 Epub ahead of print.
    1. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28:87–101.
    1. Ferracane JL. Resin composite - state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27:29–38.
    1. Gilbert GH, Litaker MS, Pihlstrom DJ, Amundson CW, Gordan VV, DPBRN Collaborative Group Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: fndings from the Dental PBRN. Oper Dent. 2010;35:491–499.
    1. Guler AU, Guler E, Yucel AC, Ertas E. Effects of polishing procedures on color stability of composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17:108–112.
    1. Hao X, Luo M, Wu J, Zhu S. A survey of power density of light-curing units used in private dental offces in Changchun City, China. Lasers Med Sic. 2013 doi: 10.1007/s10103-013-1351-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Leprince J, Devaux J, Mullier T, Vreven J, Leloup G. Pulpal temperature rise and polymerization effciency of LED curing lights. Oper Dent. 2010;35:220–230.
    1. Lima FG, Romano AR, Correa MB, Demarco FF. Infuence of microleakage, surface roughness and bioflm control on secondary caries formation around composite resin restorations an in situ evaluation. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17:61–65.
    1. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. Int Endod J. 2007;40:427–432.
    1. Mala S, Lynch CD, Burke FM, Dummer PM. Attitudes of fnal year dental students to the use of rubber dam. Int Endod J. 2009;42:632–638.
    1. Mitton BA, Wilson NH. The use and maintenance of visible light activating units in general practice. Br Dent J. 2001;191:82–86.
    1. Moraes RR, Gonçalves LS, Lancellotti AC, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? . Oper Dent. 2009;34:551–557.
    1. Moura FR, Romano AR, Lund RG, Piva E, Rodrigues SA, Júnior, Demarco FF. Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students. Braz Dent J. 2011;22:111–116.
    1. Nomoto R, McCabe JF, Nitta K, Hirano S. Relative effciency of radiation sources for photopolymerization. Odontology. 2009;97:109–114.
    1. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:129–137.
    1. Santini A, Turner S. General dental practitioners' knowledge of polymerization of resin-based composite restorations and light curing unit technology. Br Dent J. 2011;211:E13.
    1. Saunders SA. Current practicality of nanotechnology in dentistry Part 1: Focus on nanocomposite restoratives and biomimetics. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2009;1:47–61.
    1. Van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Rodolpho PA, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Cenci MS. Patient risk factors' infuence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res. 2013;92:78S–83S.
    1. Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2006;31:11–17.
    1. Zanchi CH, Carvalho RV, Rodrigues SA, Junior, Demarco FF, Burnett Júnior LH. Shrinkage stress of three composites under different polymerization methods. Braz Oral Res. 2006;20:137–142.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner