Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices.

AIM: To retrospectively evaluate the performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in load-bearing surfaces of posterior teeth in three UK general dental practices. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for the participating practitioners were that they would be able to find, in their regularly attending patients' mouths, a minimum of 30 Fuji IX restorations placed in load-bearing cavities in posterior teeth. The three practitioners who agreed to participate were given training in the methods of assessment of restorations. Presence/absence of the restoration, presence of secondary caries, anatomic form, margin adaptation, margin discolouration, surface roughness and colour match were recorded. RESULTS: Three general dental practitioners and 169 restorations in 116 patients were included in the study. Seventy-eight percent of restorations were placed in molar teeth, the remainder in premolar teeth, with 67 being Class I and 102 Class II. The mean age of restorations at examination was 25 months, ranging from five months to 56 months. Of the restorations examined, 98% (n = 166) were found to be present and intact. No secondary caries was detected clinically. Three restorations were found to have fractured. CONCLUSION: Reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in load-bearing situations in patients attending three dental practices in the UK were found to be performing satisfactorily at two years. Further investigations, of improved rigour, may now be indicated to more fully assess the performance of such restorations in the long term.

UK dentists' attitudes and behaviour towards Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for primary teeth.

BACKGROUND: Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) was introduced a decade ago as a minimal intervention treatment for caries in unindustrialised countries, but UK general dental practitioners (GDPs) may also be using this technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the materials and techniques used by a group of UK GDPs to treat caries in primary teeth. METHOD: A questionnaire, designed to determine GDPs' use of materials and techniques in the restoration of caries in primary teeth, was distributed to 600 GDPs in Scotland and England, with an explanatory letter and reply-paid envelope. The questionnaire included colour illustrations of two carious cavities in primary molar teeth and a request that respondents draw the cavity outline that they would use on the illustrations. The cavity outlines were assessed independently by two examiners. All other data were collated and analysed. RESULTS: 390 usable replies were received, a response rate of 65%. Of the respondents, 99% treated child patients and 42% of respondents were aware of ART. For treatment of a small Class II cavity, 37% drew a cavity outline without extension beyond removal of caries and a majority suggested use of an adhesive material (51% glass ionomer, 13% compomer). For cavity preparation, 47% of respondents used a drill, 10% an excavator and 41% used both. For treatment of a large occluso-lingual cavity, again most used an adhesive technique (44% glass ionomer, 12% compomer) for its restoration, while 50% used a drill, 7% an excavator and 42% used both for cavity preparation. CONCLUSION: Most respondents used adhesive materials for restoration of caries in primary molars, but, despite 42% of respondents stating that they were aware of the treatment, "true" ART was adopted by fewer than 10% of respondents.