Restorative dentistry

  1. Lightly extended
To analyse the clinical success of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth all restorations performed by the first author in his private practice, in a 5- to 20-year period were reviewed. To be included in the study, the restorations had to have been in function for at least 5 years and had to have been placed between October 1993 and October 2008. The established failure criteria were: tooth and/or restoration fracture, secondary caries, endodontic treatment, or tooth loss. At the time of the examinations, 103 (98%) restorations were in function, and 98 (95.1%) were rated as clinically successful. Two restorations failed (2%). The observed mean survival time of restorations that remained functional was 11 years and 7 months. In the present report, direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth showed a high clinical success rate and long-term mean survival time. These composite resins might be considered the material of choice to restore medium, extended, and in some clinical situations, large preparations in posterior teeth.

Borgia E, Baron R, Borgia JL. Quality and survival of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth: a 5- to 20-year retrospective longitudinal study. J Prosthodontics 2017 May 17.

Q Which of the following statements fairly represents the results of this review?
A 95.1% of the restorations were rated as clinically unsuccessful
B Direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth showed an equivocal clinical success rate
C The observed mean survival time of restorations that remained functional was 11 years and 7 months
D Secondary caries was not considered a criterion for failure

  1. New dentists’ knowledge
Assessment of the knowledge of UK graduates who had graduated in the previous four years on training and service provision within restorative dentistry was undertaken using a national descriptive cross-sectional online survey. This assessed clinicians’ knowledge of restorative dentistry and was distributed across via postgraduate dental deaneries. One-hundred responses were accepted as a sample of a potential population of 4,000. The responses were received from graduates from a variety of dental schools across the UK: 41 reported receiving career guidance within restorative dentistry: 45 were confident in their understanding of the specialty, while 53 were confident in the differences between restorative dentistry and mono-specialty training. The respondents appeared unaware regarding treatment priorities within restorative dentistry departments. Most respondents felt that receiving teaching on restorative dentistry as a specialty and career pathway would be beneficial. The results suggest that new graduates may benefit from clarification regarding the specialty of restorative dentistry.
 
Kalsi AS et al. New UK graduates’ knowledge of training and service provision within restorative dentistry - a survey. Br Dent J 2017 222: 881-887.

Q From the results of this survey:
A The majority of newly graduated dentists were confident in their understanding of the specialty of restorative dentistry
B Appeared aware regarding treatment priorities within restorative dentistry departments
C Most respondents felt that receiving teaching on restorative dentistry as a career pathway would be a waste
D New graduates may benefit from clarification regarding the specialty of restorative dentistry