Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStaxrud, Frode
dc.contributor.authorMulic, Aida Gacic
dc.contributor.authorKopperud, Simen E.
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-25T10:07:29Z
dc.date.available2024-11-25T10:07:29Z
dc.date.issued2024-11-07
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the degree whereby dentists differentiate between repair versus replacement for failed restorations. A random selection of adult patients from North Norway was chosen from the larger Tromsø 7 study. <p> <p>Methods: A randomized sample of 3,653 persons (11.5% of the total number of individuals invited to the Tromsø 7 study, 51.5% women, aged 40–93 years) were included. Based on FDI’s clinical criteria for the evaluation of restorations – 2010, 17 calibrated dentists evaluated patients by clinical and radiographical pictures in a specially designed software developed for this purpose. The dental practitioners’ opinions gave rise to the reported treatment decisions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression models (STATA 17/SE) were performed. <p> <p>Results: The participants’ DMFT values ranged from 0 (0.9%) to 24 (8.8%) (median DMFT 21.3, mean 20.0). A total of 90.062 teeth (24.7 teeth per patient) were assessed. Re-treatment suggestions were made for 3,006 restorations, i.e., an average of 3.3% re-treatments. Of these, 25.3% (n = 814) were suggested for repair and 74.7% (n = 2,192) for replacement. Dental treatment was suggested for 1,597 patients and varying from 1 to 14 suggestions per patient. Secondary caries (37.6%) and restoration fracture (15.2%) were found to be most frequently used indications for re-treatment, surface properties the least. No significant difference was found between assessing dentists based on sex or age. Clustering by dentist level was checked using intra-class correlation coefficients, demonstrating that 16% of the variance in suggestions for restoration re-treatment was explained at the dentist level. Thus, a wide range of treatment suggestions was noted among the dentists. <p> <p>Conclusion: Need for restoration revision seems low in North Norway. There is a tendency towards larger and more indirect restorations, and the diagnosis of secondary caries is still a matter of uncertainty.en_US
dc.identifier.citationStaxrud FS, Mulic A, Kopperud SE. Dentists' Treatment Decisions Concerning Restorations in Adult Patients in North Norway: A Cross-Sectional Tromsø 7 Study. Caries Research. 2024en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2320894
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000541777
dc.identifier.issn0008-6568
dc.identifier.issn1421-976X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/35812
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherKarger Publishersen_US
dc.relation.journalCaries Research
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)en_US
dc.titleDentists' Treatment Decisions Concerning Restorations in Adult Patients in North Norway: A Cross-Sectional Tromsø 7 Studyen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)