Contemporary teaching of direct posterior composite restorations in Saudi dental schools

Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs

Objective

To identify the potential factors that induce procedural errors during posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study evaluated 803 bitewing radiographs of posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University. Atypical radiographic signs of failure were screened, and different patient-, operator-, and clinical-related factors were recorded. Chi-square test was used to examine the relationship between procedural errors and recorded factors. Stepwise adjusted logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of procedural errors.

Results

The most observed errors were internal gaps at the bonding interface and internal voids. Molars had 0.39 the risk of internal voids (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39; confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-0.60; P = <0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.24-0.68; P = <0.001), and 0.57 the risk of open contact (OR = 0.57; CI = 0.34-0.97; P = 0.04) compared to premolars. Those who were >40 years of age had 1.79 the risk of overhang compared to younger patients (OR = 1.79; CI = 1.04-3.11; P = <0.04). First molars and premolars had 0.64 the risk of overhang compared to second molars and premolars (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.41-1.00; P = 0.04). Junior students had 1.97 the risk of internal gap compared to their senior counterparts (OR = 1.97; CI = 1.20-3.21; P = 0.008). Mesial restorations had 0.38 the risk of external gap compared to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) restorations (OR = 0.38; CI = 0.19-0.78; P = 0.003). Restorations with a margin coronal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) had 0.44 the risk of external gap compared to those restorations with a margin apical to the CEJ (OR = 0.44; CI = 0.29-0.66; P = <0.0001).

Conclusion

Our findings suggested a higher incidence of procedural errors in restoring premolars and MOD cavity preparations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the comprehensiveness of laboratory training and expose students to diverse clinical scenarios and various techniques.

Current trends in placing posterior composite restorations: Perspectives from Palestinian general dentists: A questionnair study

Aim

The success of composite restorations relies on material selection and practitioner-related factors that shape the overall outcome. This study explores the practices of Palestinian general dental practitioners in placing posterior composites, examining the impact of work sector, experience, and gender on their choices.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted as an online cross-sectional questionnaire and involved 351 participants, with a response rate of 69.8%. The survey comprised 18 closed-ended questions covering demographics, material selection, and composite placement in special cases, techniques, and factors influencing the choices. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and Fisher's exact tests.

Results

Composite was the predominant choice for small-size (83.7%) and large-size posterior cavities (60.4%). Practitioners commonly opted for composite restorations in cases involving occlusal parafunctional activity (60%), poor oral hygiene (78%), and subgingival cavities (72.2%). Only 19.6% and 5.3% reported occlusal and gingival beveling, respectively. Rubber dams for isolation stood at 30%, one-step self-etch adhesives at 44.9%, and the oblique layering technique at 51%. Light-emitting diode curing units were popular (97.55%), but monitoring output with a radiometer was infrequent (93.5%). Tofflemire metal matrix usage was 46.1%, whereas a sectional matrix system was employed by 29.8%. A 2 mm layer exposure to light curing for 20 s was reported by 62%, and 27.75% utilized additional light-curing postmatrix band removal.

Conclusion

The study highlights the need for Palestinian dental professionals to update their clinical approaches in placing composite restorations in posterior teeth. Gender, work sector, and experience influence practitioners' choices, emphasizing the importance of tailored continuing education programs for improving clinical practices.

Teaching of posterior composites for the restoration of permanent teeth in undergraduate dental training programmes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess aspects of teaching of posterior composite restorations (PCRs) in permanent teeth in dental schools.

STUDY SELECTION

Quantitative studies reporting on dental schools' teaching regarding the placement of PCRs in permanent teeth. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed. Risk of bias was assessed based on the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

SOURCES

Electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched in January 2023.

DATA

Forty sources reporting on 34 studies having surveyed 1,286 dental schools were included. Overall, 92.7% (95%-CI: 88.2-95.5) of dental schools reported to teach PCRs. PCRs in three-surface Class II cavities are taught by 82.0% (95%-CI: 70.4-89.7). The mandatory use of liners in deep cavities is taught by 78.3% (95%-CI: 68.9-85.5), and 44.0% (95%-CI: 34.3-54.2) reported to teach bulk-fill composites. While most posterior restorations placed by students were composites (56.1%; 95%-CI: 46.0-65.8), 94.7% (95%-CI: 86.6-98.0) of dental schools (still) teach posterior amalgam restorations. The proportion of dental schools teaching PCRs in three-surface Class II cavities increased and the mean proportion of PCRs among all posterior restorations increased over time (padj.≤0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The teaching of PCRs in dental schools around the world reflects the increased use of resin composite in clinical practice, with students in countries where dental amalgam continues to be used, placing more posterior composites than restorations of dental amalgam. The teaching of PCRs, which is anticipated to increase, will continue to be refined with further developments in adhesive materials, devices, instrumentation, and techniques.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Graduating dentists can be expected to be familiar with the use of resin composites for the restoration of posterior teeth.

Placement of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Dental Practitioners in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia

Dental practitioner-related factors can affect the quality of composite restorations. This study aimed to investigate the clinical techniques used by dental practitioners (DPs) while placing direct posterior composite restorations. Methods: A questionnaire survey that sought information related to the placement of posterior composite restorations was delivered to 161 DPs working in the Al-Kharj area, Saudi Arabia. The collected data were statistically analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test considering the DP’s working sector and the answered questions. Results: A total of 123 DPs completed the survey (76.4% response rate). There was a statistically significant difference between DPs working in the private sector and those working in the governmental sector in 7 out of 17 questionnaire items namely: preparing a minimum depth of 2 mm, (p = 0.001); mechanical means of retention, (p = 0.003); operative field isolation, (p = 0.004); adhesive strategy, (p < 0.001); light-curing unit used, (p = 0.013); the use of radiometer, (p = 0.023), and dental matrix selection, (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The clinical techniques applied by DPs working in the private sector in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia when placing posterior composite restorations, including the specifications of cavity preparation, operative field isolation, and selection of the dental matrix system, may be substandard compared to those applied by DPs working in the governmental sector.

A Contemporary Evaluation on Posterior Direct Restoration Teaching among Undergraduates in Dental Schools in Malaysia

There is a current trend to restore posterior teeth with composite resin due to increasing demands on natural tooth colour restoration and increased concern about the safety of amalgam restorations. The objective was to evaluate the current teaching of posterior direct restoration among restorative dental lecturers in Malaysia compared to available international literature. An online questionnaire, which sought information on the teaching of posterior restoration was developed and distributed to 13 dental schools in Malaysia. The response rate for the questionnaire was 53.8%. The most popular posterior restoration teaching methods among the respondents were lecture (95.7%), demonstration (87.0%) and problem-based learning (PBL) (73.9%), while continuous assessment and a practical competency test (82.6%) were the most popular assessment methods. Placing a hard setting calcium hydroxide and GIC base for deep cavity restored by composite restoration was taught in 79.2% of cases. The standard protocols for posterior composite restoration were incremental filling in deep cavity (87.5%), using circumferential metal bands with wooden wedge (91.7%), with a total etch system (95.8%), using a light emitting diode (LED) light curing unit (91.7%), finishing using water cooling (80%) and finishing with a disc (87.5%). Graduates from dental schools in Malaysia received similar theoretical, preclinical and clinical teaching on posterior restoration techniques, although there were variations in the delivery methods, techniques and assessments, pointing to a need for uniformity and consensus.