Posterior Restorations Choice: Results From A Brazilian’ Dentist Survey

Method: : A cross-sectional study was performed using a closed questionnaire with general dental practitioners (n=276) in southern Brazil. Information regarding socio-demographic variables, level of specialization, time since graduation and local of work were gathered. First option regarding posterior restorations (direct composite, amalgam or indirect restoration) was collected. In addition, the type of composite used for posterior teeth was also assessed. Finally, it was asked if the professionals used rubber dam to perform posterior composite restorations. Data were submitted to descriptive analysis, and the association with time since graduation, local of work and post-graduate training was tested by Fisher Exact Test (p≤0.05).

Result: The response rate was 68% (187). GDPs selected mostly composite resin as first choice for posterior restorations (72.2%; CI95% 65.2-78.5). In relation to the type of composite used, most of the professionals (74.5%; CI95% 67.4-80.4) used microhybrid composite and 42.6% (CI95% 35.6-50.2) used rubber dam for posterior composite restoration application. Dentists with more time in clinical practice used less composite (p=0.014). In addition, public service showed a borderline association with placement of amalgam (p=0.068). Specialists used more frequently rubber dam to restore posterior teeth than did non-specialists (p=0.006).

Conclusion: Composites were the first choice for posterior restoration among surveyed dentists. Microhybrid was the preferred type of composite and the use of rubber dam for composite resin placement in posterior teeth is not frequent. Amount of time in clinical practice, the working place and the level of specialization affected the dentists’ choices.