General Dentists and Schools Survey Regarding Prosthodontic Materials and Techniques

Objectives: To investigate, by questionnaire, the selection of current materials and techniques in fixed prosthodontics by dental practitioners in the West of Saudi Arabia. In addition, those methods were compared with methods and materials taught in dental schools via second survey sent to the chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was mailed to 500 general dental practitioners at random from dentists listed by Saudi Council for Health Specialties in 2009. The questionnaires include material for the post fabrication, core build-up, tissue management, impression materials and techniques. Also cements, casting alloys and type of restoration were included in the study. A slightly modified questionnaire was also distributed to chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments in 3 dental schools. Data analysis was performed via frequency distribution and chi-square statistics. Results: A total of 452 usable questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 90.4% and 3 questionnaires were returned by the dental schools (response rate 100%). When selecting a material for the core build-up of vital teeth, practitioners used: amalgam (60%), dual and light-cured resin composite (54%), glass-ionomer cements (47%), compomer (29%) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (24%). Where the use of a post was indicated indirect posts of both noble (67%) and base metal (37%) alloys were preferred to prefabricated posts by the majority of practitioners for the restoration of root filled teeth. Direct titanium (14%) and stainless steel (14%) posts were not used extensively. Impression materials used by the practitioners were: addition-cured silicone (70%), condensation-cured silicone (20%), polyether (9%) and polysulfide (2%). Traditional glass-ionomer cements (59%) were used for the luting of single and multiple porcelain fused to metal units, with zinc phosphate and polycarboxylate cements (33%) being the preferred alternatives. Conclusion: Overall there was an agreement on the materials and techniques used by general practioners and dental schools.