The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026
Experts' Willingness to Restore With Direct Composite: Complexity, Cuspal Coverage, and Techniques.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bailey Oliver, Pfefferkorn Frank, Attin Thomas, Frankenberger Roland, Loomans Bas, Lührs Anne-Katrin, Scotti Nicola, Wolff Diana, Hickel Reinhard, Opdam Niek
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Minimal evidence exists on how class II cavity complexity influences direct restoration provision or if complexifying factors influence the use of techniques and materials. This study aimed to explore: (1) experts' willingness to restore a variety of specific presentations of class II cavities with direct composite restorations; (2) the influence of cavity characteristics on this and the provision of cuspal coverage; and (3) how varying cavity presentations affected technique and material use.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: An e-questionnaire developed by international experts was distributed to 67 experts on direct composite restoration. The questionnaire section reported here presented vignettes of varying class II cavities, coded by potential complexifying factors. Respondents were asked if they would restore them with a direct composite. If so, it then asked what specific materials and techniques would be used. Regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Vignette response rate was 78%. There was a large variation in willingness to restore varying class II cavity presentations with direct composite. This was significantly influenced by the presence of large inter-proximal 'bridging' gaps, root fillings, broad boxes, ≥ 3 cavity surfaces involved and deep sub-gingival margins. When present, these complexifying characteristics affected material and technique use. Those willing to restore more complex cavities were more likely to use more curved circumferential bands and less likely to use a rubber dam, among other factors.
CONCLUSION: Cavity complexity affects experts' willingness to place direct composite restorations. The willingness to use a variety of techniques was associated with a greater readiness to restore more complex class II cavities with direct composite.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: An e-questionnaire developed by international experts was distributed to 67 experts on direct composite restoration. The questionnaire section reported here presented vignettes of varying class II cavities, coded by potential complexifying factors. Respondents were asked if they would restore them with a direct composite. If so, it then asked what specific materials and techniques would be used. Regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Vignette response rate was 78%. There was a large variation in willingness to restore varying class II cavity presentations with direct composite. This was significantly influenced by the presence of large inter-proximal 'bridging' gaps, root fillings, broad boxes, ≥ 3 cavity surfaces involved and deep sub-gingival margins. When present, these complexifying characteristics affected material and technique use. Those willing to restore more complex cavities were more likely to use more curved circumferential bands and less likely to use a rubber dam, among other factors.
CONCLUSION: Cavity complexity affects experts' willingness to place direct composite restorations. The willingness to use a variety of techniques was associated with a greater readiness to restore more complex class II cavities with direct composite.