Restorative treatment practices and dentist-related factors

This study aimed at elucidating real-life aspects of restorative treatment practices. In addition, dentists' views and perceptions of and variation in restorative treatment practices with respect to dentist-related factors were evaluated. Reasons for placement and replacement of restoration, material selection, posterior restoration longevity, and the use of local anesthesia were assessed on two cross-sectional data sets. Data from the Helsinki Public Dental Service (PDS) included details on 3057 restorations performed by dentists (n=134) during routine clinical work in 2001. The other PDS data from Vantaa were based on 205 patient records of young adults containing information on 1969 restorations investigated retrospectively from 1994-1996 backwards; 51 dentists performed the restorations. In addition, dentists’ self-reported use of local anesthesia and estimates of restoration longevity were investigated by means of a nationwide questionnaire sent to 592 general dental practitioners selected by systematic sampling from the membership list of the Finnish Dental Association in 2004. All data sets included some background information on dentists such as gender, year of birth or graduation, and working sector. In PDS in 2001, primary caries was the reason for placement of restoration more often among patients aged under 19 years than among older patients (p<0.001). Among patients over 36 years of age, replacements represented the majority. Regarding dentist-related factors, replacements of restorations were made by younger dentists more frequently than by older dentists (p<0.001). In PDS in 1994-1996, the replacement rate of posterior restorations was greater among female dentists than among male dentists (p=0.01), especially for amalgams (p=0.008). The mean age of replaced posterior restoration among young adults was 8.9 (SD 5.2) years for amalgam and 2.4 (SD 1.4) years for tooth-colored restorations, the actual replacement rate for all existing posterior restorations being 7% in PDS in 1994-1996. Of all restorative materials used, a clear majority (69%) were composites in PDS in 2001. Local anesthesia was used in 48% of cases and more frequently for older patients (55%) than for patients aged under 13 years (35%) (p<0.001). Younger dentists more often used local anesthesia for primary restoration than did the older dentists (p<0.001), especially for primary teeth (p=0.005). Working sector had an impact on dentists’ self-reported use of local anesthesia and estimates of restoration longevity; public sector dentists reported using local anesthesia more frequently than private sector dentists for Class II (p=0.04) and for Class III restorations (p=0.01). Private sector dentists gave longer estimates of posterior composite longevity than public sector dentists (p=0.001). In conclusion, restorative treatment practices seem to vary according to patient age and also dentist-related factors. Replacements of restorations are common for adults. For children, clear underuse of local anesthesia prevails.

Evaluation of the Biocompatibility of Poly (ortho ester), Copolymer of ε-caprolactone/D,L-lactide and the Composite of Copolymer of ε-caprolactone/D,L-lactide and Tricalciumphosphate as Bone Filling Material

The purpose of this series of studies was to evaluate the biocompatibility of poly (ortho) ester (POE), copolymer of ε-caprolactone and D,L-lactide [P (ε-CL/DL-LA)] and the composite of P(ε-CL/DL-LA) and tricalciumphosphate (TCP) as bone filling material in bone defects. Tissue reactions and resorption times of two solid POE-implants (POE 140 and POE 46) with different methods of sterilization (gamma- and ethylene oxide sterilization), P(ε-CL/DL-LA)(40/60 w/w) in paste form and 50/50 w/w composite of 40/60 w/w P(ε-CL/DL-LA) and TCP and 27/73 w/w composite of 60/40 w/w P(ε-CL/DL-LA) and TCP were examined in experimental animals. The follow-up times were from one week to 52 weeks. The bone samples were evaluated histologically and the soft tissue samples histologically, immunohistochemically and electronmicroscopically. The results showed that the resorption time of gamma sterilized POE 140 was eight weeks and ethylene oxide sterilized POE 140 13 weeks in bone. The resorption time of POE 46 was more than 24 weeks. The gamma sterilized rods started to erode from the surface faster than ethylene oxide sterilized rods for both POEs. Inflammation in bone was from slight to moderate with POE 140 and moderate with POE 46. No highly fluorescent layer of tenascin or fibronectin was found in the soft tissue. Bone healing at the sites of implantation was slower than at control sites with the copolymer in small bone defects. The resorption time for the copolymer was over one year. Inflammation in bone was mostly moderate. Bone healing at the sites of implantation was also slower than at the control sites with the composite in small and large mandibular bone defects. Bone formation had ceased at both sites by the end of follow-up in large mandibular bone defects. The ultrastructure of the connective tissue was normal during the period of observation. It can be concluded that the method of sterilization influenced the resorption time of both POEs. Gamma sterilized POE 140 could have been suitable material for filling small bone defects, whereas the degradation times of solid EO-sterilized POE 140 and POE 46 were too slow to be considered as bone filling material. Solid material is difficult to contour, which can be considered as a disadvantage. The composites were excellent to handle, but the degradation time of the polymer and the composites were too slow. Therefore, the copolymer and the composite can not be recommended as bone filling material.