Teaching of direct posterior resin composite restorations in UK dental therapy training programmes.

AIM: With the numbers of dental therapists involved in the delivery of dental care within the UK on the increase, and the trend towards the use of direct resin composites (composites) for the restoration of posterior teeth, this study was undertaken to describe the teaching of posterior composites in dental therapy training programmes in the UK. A secondary aim was to identify differences in techniques for posterior composites taught within these dental therapy training programmes. METHODS: In 2008/9, a questionnaire seeking information on the teaching of posterior composites was distributed by email to 13 centres with dental therapy training programmes in the UK. This questionnaire sought information relating to the teaching of direct posterior composites to dental therapy students, including the amounts of preclinical and clinical teaching in respect of deciduous and permanent teeth, numbers of restorations placed, contraindications to placement, and details in respect of operative techniques. RESULTS: Ten completed responses were received (response rate = 77%). In ten programmes, student dental therapists received clinical training in the placement of composite restorations in the occlusal surfaces of premolar and permanent molar teeth, and nine programmes included such training for two and three surface occlusoproximal restorations. The mean proportions of posterior restorations placed clinically by the trainee dental therapists in permanent teeth using dental amalgam and composite were 52% and 46% respectively (range: amalgam = 20-95%; composite = 5-70%). CONCLUSION: With the exception of one programme, the teaching of posterior composites is a well established element of dental therapy training. Some variations were noted in the teaching of clinical techniques between respondent training centres. It is suggested that to ensure harmony in approaches to treatments provided by graduated therapists that training centres look to relevant consensus documents, such as those of the British Association for the Teaching of Conservative Dentistry. The findings of our study are important for the future provision of oral healthcare, given the growing evidence base in favour of minimally invasive dentistry.

Trends in dental education in the Persian Gulf--an example from Iran: contemporary placement of posterior composites.

In recent years, there has been expansion of dental education programmes from established European and North American schools into regions in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf States, and Asia. Accompanying this, there has been migration of dentists from these regions of the world to Europe and North America in the hope of finding employment or to pursue postgraduate education. Little awareness exists, however in western countries on the amount and level of clinical training provided in dental schools in which these dentists have trained. The aim of this paper is to investigate the teaching to undergraduate students in Iran of an important aspect of clinical dentistry which is showing continual development in western schools, namely the use of resin-based composites in the restoration of posterior teeth. In 2008, a questionnaire seeking information on the teaching of posterior resin-based composites was distributed by email to the person responsible for delivering teaching of operative dentistry in each of the 18 dental schools with undergraduate dental degree programmes in Iran. All 18 schools teach the placement of occlusal and occlusoproximal resin-based composite restorations in premolar and permanent molar teeth. Resin-based composites currently account for 42% of posterior direct restorations placed by undergraduates in Iran. Despite variations between dental schools being noted in the teaching of certain techniques for posterior resin-based composites, the overall extent and content of teaching of posterior resin-based composites in Iran could be described as comparable to that observed in western countries.

Clinical assessment of postoperative sensitivity in posterior composite restorations.

This incidence of postoperative sensitivity was evaluated in resin-based posterior restorations. Two hundred and ninety-two direct restorations were evaluated in premolars and molars. A total of 143 Class I and 149 Class II restorations (MO/OD and MOD) were placed in patients ranging in age from 30 to 50 years. After the cavity preparations were completed, a rubber dam was placed, and the preparations were restored using a total-etch system (Prime & Bond NT) and a resin-based restorative material (TPH Spectrum). The patients were contacted after 24 hours and 7, 30 and 90 days postoperatively and questioned regarding the presence of sensitivity and the stimuli that triggered that sensitivity. The Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test were used for statistical analysis. Evaluation at 24 hours after restorative treatment revealed statistically significant differences among the types of cavity preparations restored and the occurrence of postoperative sensitivity (p = 0.0003), with a higher frequency of sensitivity in Class II MOD restorations (26%), followed by Class II MO/DO (15%) and Class I restorations (5%). At 7, 30 and 90 days after restorative treatment, there was a decrease in the occurrence of sensitivity for all groups. The percentage of sensitivity among the groups was not significantly different. This study shows that the occurrence of sensitivity is correlated with the complexity of the restoration.

Practical posterior composites. Efficient placement and predictable results.

Certainly, we could spend more time matching shades, applying characterizations, placing secondary anatomy, and even finishing. However, if posterior composite restorations are to be a viable alternative to amalgam in appropriate cases, we must accomplish efficient and predictable placement so that fees for the two types of restorations are somewhat in line. Contact must be solid, sensitivity must be kept to a minimum, and placement and finishing must be fairly simple and organized. If the problems with posterior composites aren't kept to a minimum, all of dentistry will suffer. Our contacts are excellent most of the time, but occasionally we need to redo a "light" one. Our best estimate is that about one in 100 fillings that had no preoperative symptoms needed some postoperative care after restoring. Usually these complaints are corrected by occlusal adjustment, and very rarely by replacing the restoration. We have not yet made a perfect restoration in our practice--we are still trying.

A survey of the use of matrix bands and their decontamination in general dental practice.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine the pattern of use and re-use of matrix bands in general practice in Scotland, to demonstrate which type of matrix band is most commonly used and to examine infection control measures of relevance to the safe use and re-use of matrix bands. SUBJECTS: 621 of Scotland's 1,849 general dental practitioners were randomly selected. DATA COLLECTION: A 19-item self-reported questionnaire was mailed in June 1999 with a follow-up mailing sent in August 1999. ANALYSIS: Data analysis involved descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation. Where appropriate, differences between categories were tested for significance by a Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 479 questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 77%. Reported compliance with routine glove wearing was high (91%). Most dentists (92%) provided training on instrument cleaning and sterilisation for their dental nurses. Ultrasonic baths were used by 59% of practitioners; the remainder soaked or manually scrubbed instruments to remove debris before autoclaving. The Siqveland matrix was the matrix of choice for 96% of respondents. 7% provided a new matrix band for each patient. Most (64%) changed bands only when they were bent or damaged; 29% changed them daily or weekly. Deterrents to use of a new band for each patient were cost (39%) and time (52%). A total of 54% of respondents considered matrix band replacement unnecessary between patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Siqveland matrix band is the most popular among the study group of dental practitioners. Re-use of matrix bands is common. Guidelines for the safe re-use of matrix bands are required.

Assessment of gingival margin thickness before margin placement.

Matrix material can be cut and placed beneath the gingival tissue to mimic a metal collar on a metal/ceramic crown restoration. If this metal matrix causes a discoloration of the gingival tissue, it would be wise to restore the tooth by using an all-porcelain margin.