Methods:
In this descriptive study, 160 dental students of 5 & 6 years were selected according to the existing lists by means of a census sampling in these schools. The participants were assessed through a valid and reliable questionnaire which included different items of teaching posterior composites as well as the students’ experiences in this regard. The data were descriptively reported.
Results:
In most cases, moderate judgments were expressed by the students regarding the different aspects of teaching posterior composites, however, 48.8% and 41.9% of participants reported their good ability to do 1-surface and 2-surface restorations using composite resin. Furthermore, 46.3% believed in the poor theoretical teaching of posterior composites compared to amalgam restorations in these schools. In 85.0% and 89.4% of Cl I and Cl II cavities, amalgam was preferred to composite resin and in average; the studied students restored 16.59, 11.9 and 7.2 posterior teeth with 1, 2 and 3 surfaces using composite resins.
Conclusions:
Although with some positive trends in teaching the placement of posterior composite restorations, amalgam is the preferred material in the restorations performed in the studied schools. This highlights the need to stress more attention to teaching the posterior composites and promote similar educations as amalgam using the same guidelines