Satisfaction with dental care among patients who receive invasive or non-invasive treatment for non-cavitated early dental caries: findings from one region of the National Dental PBRN.

BACKGROUND: The objectives were to: (1) quantify patient satisfaction with treatment for early dental caries overall, and according to whether or not (2a) the patient received invasive treatment; (2b) was high-risk for dental caries, and had dental insurance; and (3) encourage practitioners to begin using non-invasive approaches to early caries management. METHODS: Ten practitioners recorded patient, lesion, and treatment information about non-cavitated early caries lesions. Information on 276 consecutive patients with complete data was included, who received either non-invasive (no dental restoration) or invasive (dental restoration) treatment. Patients completed a patient satisfaction questionnaire and were classified as dissatisfied if they did not "agree" or "strongly agree" with any of 14 satisfaction items. RESULTS: Patients had a mean (± SD) age of 41.8 (±15.8) years, 64% were female and 88% were white. Twenty-five percent (n = 68) were dissatisfied in at least one of the 14 satisfaction items. Satisfaction levels did not significantly vary by patient's gender, race, caries risk category, or affected tooth surface location. Overall, 11% (28 of 276) received invasive treatment; satisfaction did not differ between patients who had invasive or non-invasive treatment. Seven patients received invasive treatment at their request even though that was not what their practitioner recommended; 5 out of 6 were satisfied with their treatment nonetheless. CONCLUSIONS: About one-fourth of patients treated for non-cavitated early caries were dissatisfied with at least some aspect of their dental care experience. Satisfaction of patients who received invasive treatment did not differ from those who received non-invasive treatment.

A preliminary survey of impression trays used in the fabrication of fixed indirect restorations.

PURPOSE: A variety of impression trays are used in the fabrication of fixed indirect restorations. Impressions used in the construction of fixed indirect restorations were examined for tray type, manner of use, and overall impression quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A commercial dental laboratory provided 1403 impressions used to fabricate fixed indirect restorations during a 3-month period. Impressions were examined for tray type, quantity and type of recorded abutments, the impression of intact teeth adjacent to and opposing the abutment, the presence of the canine in the impression, and an assessment of the quality of the impression. RESULTS: A majority of trays examined were plastic (864, or 61.6%). Dual-arch trays comprised 73.1% of the total. Most of these were metal posterior (n = 499) or plastic posterior (n = 280). Among partial dual-arch impressions, 561 (55.7%) were for the single abutment restoration, bounded by intact teeth anterior and posterior, and with an intact opposing tooth. Eleven percent of plastic dual-arch impressions failed to register the canine. Regarding restoration type, there were 955 impressions for the single-tooth crown, 46 for implant-supported restorations, and 11 for veneers. Twenty impressions were for posts, inlays, or onlays. Impressions for multiple single-tooth crowns and fixed partial dentures comprised the remainder. In terms of overall quality, 85.3% of impressions were excellent or good. The lowest performance in terms of excellent quality was in the anterior plastic single-arch impression (44.8%), whereas the best rate of excellent quality noted was for the posterior dual-arch impression (82.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, dual-arch trays were the most commonly used tray. Recommendations for the use of the dual-arch tray were not followed in a substantial number of impressions examined.