Differences Between Reported And Actual Restored Caries Lesion Depths: Results From The Dental PBRN
doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2011.12.015
Abstract
Objective
The
objectives of this research were to (1) quantify the discordance
between the caries lesion depth at which dentists restored initial
lesions during a clinical study (“actual depth”) and the lesion depth
that they reported during a hypothetical clinical scenario (“reported
depth”); (2) test the hypothesis that certain practitioner, practice,
patient, and caries lesion characteristics are significantly associated
with this discordance.
Methods
:
Practitioner-investigators who perform restorative dentistry in their
practices completed an enrollment questionnaire and participated in two
consecutive studies on caries diagnosis and treatment. The first study
was a survey asking about caries treatment. The second study collected
data on restorations placed in routine clinical practice due to caries
in patients over 19 years of age on occlusal surfaces only or proximal
surfaces only. We report results on 2691 restorations placed by 205
dentists in 1930 patients with complete data.
Results
:
Discordance between actual depth and reported depth occurred in only
about 2% of the restorations done due to proximal caries, but about 49%
of the restorations done due to occlusal caries. Practice type,
restorative material used and the diagnostic methods used were
significantly associated with discordance.
Conclusion
:
Dentists frequently restored occlusal caries at a shallower depth as
compared to their reported depth, but the discordance was very small for
proximal lesions. Discordance for occlusal caries was more common when
radiographs were not taken or if a resin restoration was placed.
Comments