Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to assess the knowledge, practice and believes of Dental students, interns, general practitioners and specialists regarding proximal contact tightness of class 2 direct dental restoration.

Material and methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on the target group using an online-based survey. The questionnaire was sent to eligible participants (N = 250). It was divided into 3 domains as follow: demographic data serving as age, gender, professional ranking and duration of practice; experience of dental professionals regarding proximal contact of class II restoration (7 questions); opinion and believes of dental professionals about proximal contact of class II restoration (9 questions). The collected data were analysed with a statistical software program.

Results: The response rate was 74.4% (N = 186). The participants were 62.4% male and 37.6% female. 57.5% of respondents were dental students, 26.9% dental interns, 11.3% dental specialist and 4.3% general practitioners. In domain 2, particularly in response to the question regarding checking the contour of class II restoration, less proportion of general practitioners use bitewing radiograph for that purpose than most of the specialists who used both bitewing and dental floss (p = 0.001). Similarly, in domain 3, the specialists strongly accept a difference in the contact area's tightness at rest and function (P = 0.049). Most of the specialists believed that the amalgam restoration provides better proximal contact (P = 0.003).

Conclusion: Most of the dental practitioners surveyed in this study appeared with good knowledge, practice and believes regarding proximal contact tightness of class II direct dental restoration. However, continuous professional courses for all dental health care personnel are recommended to update their knowledge, which will be reflected in their practical skills.

Keywords: Knowledge; Dental Professionals; Class II Restoration; Proximal Contact

References

1. Wolff D., et al. “Proximal Contact Tightness Between Direct-composite Additions in the Posterior Dentition: An In Vitro Investigation”. Operative Dentistry 3 (2012): 272-280.
2. Pretty IA. “Caries detection and diagnosis: novel technologies”. Journal of Dentistry 10 (2006): 727-39.
3. Oh SH., et al. “Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 6 (2004): 538-545.
4. Owens BM and Phebus DDSJG. “Dental Matrix Systems”. General Dentistry (2016): 64-70.
5. Saber M., et al. “Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness of Class II Resin Composite Restorations”. Operative Dentistry (2010): 37-43.
6. Saber MH., et al. “Creating tight proximal contacts for MOD resin composite restorations”. Operative Dentistry 3 (2011): 304-310.
7. Khan F., et al. “Comparison of Proximal Contact and Contours of Premolars restored with Composite Restoration using Circumferential Matrix Band with and without Separation Ring: A Randomized Clinical Trial”. International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 3 (2013): 7-13.
8. El-Badrawy WA., et al. “Evaluation of proximal contacts of posterior composite restorations with 4 placement techniques”. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 3 (2003): 162-167.
9. Loomans BAC., et al. “A Clinical Study on Interdental Separation Techniques”. Operative Dentistry 3 (2007): 207-211.
10. Gomes IA., et al. “In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 8 (2015): 643-647.
11. Kim K-H., et al. “Evaluation of tightness of proximal tooth contact in permanent dentition”. The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 6 (2008): 553-560.
12. Kampouropoulos D., et al. “The Influence of Matrix Type on the Proximal Contact in Class II Resin Composite Restorations”. Operative Dentistry 35 (2010): 454-462.
13. De la Peña VA., et al. “Sectional matrix: Step-by-step directions for their clinical use”. British Dental Journal 1 (2016): 11-14.
14. Demarco FF., et al. “Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings”. Journal of Dentistry 3 (2007): 231-237.
15. Loomans BAC., et al. “The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness”. Journal of Dentistry 2 (2007): 104-108.
16. Stuart JL. “Matrices whose powers are completely reducible Z-matrices”. Linear and Multilinear Algebra 1 (1989): 75-83.