Practice based research in dentistry: an alternative to deal with clinical questions.

Clinical interventions in dental practice should be determined based on the best scientific evidence available. Well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide important evidence supporting the efficacy of interventions and are usually considered as the best primary evidence. However, the strict criteria adopted by most RCTs reduce their external validity since some findings from these studies might not work under usual conditions. On the other hand, practice-based research (PBR) studies have been designed to better define the effectiveness of clinical interventions under settings closer to "real-world" conditions. Therefore, this review aimed to describe different PBR designs discussing some advantages and limitations of such studies. The stimulus to organization PBR networks is discussed since the studies performed by these networks involve large number of clinicians and important conclusions can be drawn. Designs of observational studies including surveys and cohort studies based on practice are presented. Survey methods are important to know the behavior of practitioners regarding diagnostic and decision of treatment. Cohorts allow assessing different cofounders contributing to some outcome since large sample sizes and long follow-up periods can be observed in some of these studies. Pragmatic trials designed to take place in real-world clinical practice settings are also discussed as a useful design to assess the effectiveness of clinical interventions. In conclusion, this review sought to present PBR studies as alternative designs to answer clinical questions, but not replacing randomized clinical trials.

Practice based research in dentistry: an alternative to deal with clinical questions

Abstract Clinical interventions in dental practice should be determined based on the best scientific evidence available. Well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide important evidence supporting the efficacy of interventions and are usually considered as the best primary evidence. However, the strict criteria adopted by most RCTs reduce their external validity since some findings from these studies might not work under usual conditions. On the other hand, practice-based research (PBR) studies have been designed to better define the effectiveness of clinical interventions under settings closer to "real-world" conditions. Therefore, this review aimed to describe different PBR designs discussing some advantages and limitations of such studies. The stimulus to organization PBR networks is discussed since the studies performed by these networks involve large number of clinicians and important conclusions can be drawn. Designs of observational studies including surveys and cohort studies based on practice are presented. Survey methods are important to know the behavior of practitioners regarding diagnostic and decision of treatment. Cohorts allow assessing different cofounders contributing to some outcome since large sample sizes and long follow-up periods can be observed in some of these studies. Pragmatic trials designed to take place in real-world clinical practice settings are also discussed as a useful design to assess the effectiveness of clinical interventions. In conclusion, this review sought to present PBR studies as alternative designs to answer clinical questions, but not replacing randomized clinical trials.

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

Composites resins have become the first choice for direct anterior and posterior restorations. The great popularity is related to their esthetic appearance and reduced need of sound tissue removal as compared with former treatments. Several studies have demonstrated that composite restorations may last long in clinical service. In this review we discuss the factors playing a role on the long-term longevity. Composite restorations have demonstrated a good clinical performance with annual failure rates varying from 1% to 3% in posterior teeth and 1% to 5% in anterior teeth. Factors related to the patients such as caries risk and occlusal stress risk, in addition to socioeconomic factors, may affect the survival significantly. Characteristics of the clinical operators, particularly their decision making when it comes to observing or approaching an existing restoration, are decisive for longevity. Cavity features such as the number of restored walls, composite volume, and presence of endodontic treatment are of major importance and may dictate the service time of the restorative approach. The choice of restorative composite seems to have a minor effect on longevity provided that appropriate technical procedures are used. The main reasons for failure in posterior teeth are secondary caries and fracture (restoration or tooth/restoration), while in anterior teeth esthetic concerns are the main reasons leading to restoration failures. Composite resin restorations can be considered a reliable treatment as long as both the professional and the patient are aware of the factors involved in restoration failures.

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

Abstract Composites resins have become the first choice for direct anterior and posterior restorations. The great popularity is related to their esthetic appearance and reduced need of sound tissue removal as compared with former treatments. Several studies have demonstrated that composite restorations may last long in clinical service. In this review we discuss the factors playing a role on the long-term longevity. Composite restorations have demonstrated a good clinical performance with annual failure rates varying from 1% to 3% in posterior teeth and 1% to 5% in anterior teeth. Factors related to the patients such as caries risk and occlusal stress risk, in addition to socioeconomic factors, may affect the survival significantly. Characteristics of the clinical operators, particularly their decision making when it comes to observing or approaching an existing restoration, are decisive for longevity. Cavity features such as the number of restored walls, composite volume, and presence of endodontic treatment are of major importance and may dictate the service time of the restorative approach. The choice of restorative composite seems to have a minor effect on longevity provided that appropriate technical procedures are used. The main reasons for failure in posterior teeth are secondary caries and fracture (restoration or tooth/restoration), while in anterior teeth esthetic concerns are the main reasons leading to restoration failures. Composite resin restorations can be considered a reliable treatment as long as both the professional and the patient are aware of the factors involved in restoration failures.

Crown vs. composite for post-retained restorations: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial compared the survival of composite resin restorations and metal-ceramic crowns on endodontically treated teeth that received a glass fiber post using 2 different cementation methods. METHODS: Forty-seven patients (age 42.5 ± 11.5) with fifty-seven endodontically treated teeth with extensive coronal damage but always with one intact surface were randomly allocated according to the type of coronal restoration: metal-ceramic crown or composite resin. In case of crown restoration, a core buildup was performed with microhybrid composite resin. The dentin bonding agent and composite resin used were the same for both direct and indirect restorations. Descriptive analysis was performed using FDI clinical criteria and survival of restorations/teeth analyzed using Kaplan-Meier statistics and log-rank tests. RESULTS: 57 restorations (30 composite resin and 27 crowns) were made in 47 patients. The recall rate was 100% and follow up time ranged between 1 and 5 years. One tooth was extracted 11 months post-restoration due to root fracture (composite group). Eight composite restorations and one crown had reparable failures, all due to secondary caries or restoration fracture. The overall annual failure rate (AFR) was 0.92% after 50 months for success of the restorations, with 1.83% for the composite group and 0.26% for the metal-ceramic crown group. The log-rank test showed no difference for survival according to the type of restoration (p=0.344). However, for success rates, metal-ceramic crowns demonstrated better performance (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Indirect restorations provided higher acceptable clinical performance and lower need for re-intervention, but both types of restorations presented good survival rates. (NCT01461239). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When endodontically treated teeth with at least one intact surface must be restored, composite resin restorations and metal-ceramic crows are acceptable alternatives to achieve good survival and success rates.

Rehabilitation of severely worn teeth: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the treatment performance/longevity of dental materials/techniques indicated to restore teeth with severe wear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to select retrospective studies (cohort and case series) and prospective studies that evaluated or compared techniques/materials to restore teeth with severe wear. A search was conducted in Medline (via Pubmed - June 2015) with no limits for publication year or language to identify clinical studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials included. The annual failure rate (AFR%) of restorations was calculated for each study. RESULTS: A total of 511 articles were found and 23 studies were eligible for full-text analysis; hand search included 7 more papers. From the 30 studies, 12 were eligible for the review. Most of these studies presented good performance of the restorations in teeth with severe wear. AFR ranged from 0.4% (microhybrid) to 26.3% (microfilled) for direct resin composite, 0% to 14.9% for indirect resin composite and 2.7% for porcelain veneers. CONCLUSION: There is no strong evidence to suggest that any material is better than another. Direct or indirect materials may be feasible options to restore severely worn teeth.

Preference for using posts to restore endodontically treated teeth: findings from a survey with dentists.

The aim of this study was to evaluate if clinical experience, whether in relation to length of practice time and/or level of specialization influences the dentist's preference for using posts to restore endodontically treated teeth. A cross sectional study was carried out using a questionnaire with dentists (n = 276) in Pelotas, southern Brazil. Data were collected regarding clinical experience, post-graduate training, and variables related to restorations (posts/cements and use of rubber dam) for endodontically treated teeth. The data were submitted to a descriptive analysis and associations were tested. The response rate was 68%. Cast metal posts (24.53%), glass fiber posts (20.75%) and resin cement (66.67%) were the most commonly selected materials. In relation to rubber dams, 93.05% of the dentists were found not use them to lute posts. There was a significant association between the level of training of post-graduate dentists and the type of post used (p = 0.027), in that dentists without post-graduate training used cast metal posts more frequently, whereas dentists with post-graduate training reported glass fiber posts as their first choice. The results of the study showed that dentists preferred cast metal posts, glass fiber posts and resin cement. Continuing education influenced the decision of the dentists on their choice of dental posts.

Preference for using posts to restore endodontically treated teeth: findings from a survey with dentists

The aim of this study was to evaluate if clinical experience, whether in relation to length of practice time and/or level of specialization influences the dentist’s preference for using posts to restore endodontically treated teeth. A cross sectional study was carried out using a questionnaire with dentists (n = 276) in Pelotas, southern Brazil. Data were collected regarding clinical experience, post-graduate training, and variables related to restorations (posts/cements and use of rubber dam) for endodontically treated teeth. The data were submitted to a descriptive analysis and associations were tested. The response rate was 68%. Cast metal posts (24.53%), glass fiber posts (20.75%) and resin cement (66.67%) were the most commonly selected materials. In relation to rubber dams, 93.05% of the dentists were found not use them to lute posts. There was a significant association between the level of training of post-graduate dentists and the type of post used (p = 0.027), in that dentists without post-graduate training used cast metal posts more frequently, whereas dentists with post-graduate training reported glass fiber posts as their first choice. The results of the study showed that dentists preferred cast metal posts, glass fiber posts and resin cement. Continuing education influenced the decision of the dentists on their choice of dental posts.