Reasons for replacement of restorations: dentists' perceptions

Abstract

Objective. This study aimed at evaluating dentists' perceived reasons for replacement of restorations and ascertaining the differences arising from dentists' gender, time since graduation and working sector (salaried vs private). Materials and methods. A postal questionnaire was sent to a total of 592 working-age general dental practitioners in Finland, 57% (n = 339) responded. The dentists were asked to rank in order of priority the six most common reasons for replacement of composite in the incisors and posterior teeth and amalgam in the posterior tooth from a list of 12 reasons. Ranking order 1 was worth six points and order 6 one point; the non-ranked reasons were equal to zero. Differences in the means of the summed scores of caries-related (RC), fracture- and failure-related (RF) and miscellaneous (RO) groups were evaluated by ANOVA. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05. Results. For each of three restorations, the RF group comprised 48–56% of the sum-scores. Of the single reasons, secondary caries predominated (20–24%). For composite restorations in the incisors, the mean sum-score of the RO group was greater for private-sector dentists (p = 0.04). For composite restorations in the posterior teeth, the mean sum-score of RF group was higher for male than female dentists (p = 0.009). For amalgam, mean score for RF was 10.2, followed by RC (8.5) and RO (1.1). Conclusion. Secondary caries and various fractures and failures predominate as dentists' perceived reasons for replacement of restorations. Private dentists included miscellaneous reasons as one of their six reasons more often than did the salaried dentists. The complex process of treatment planning and decision-making is influenced by many as of yet unknown factors, calling for emphasis on investigating of perceptions.

Key Words::

• amalgam
• composite
• dentist gender
• working sector
• treatment practices

Acknowledgments

Our sincere thanks go to all the dentists who responded to our questionnaire. Grants to U.P. by the Finnish Dental Society Apollonia and the City of Helsinki Health Centre are gratefully acknowledged.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.