Material Selection for Posterior Restorations: An Observational Study Evaluating Dentists' Preferences in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Main Article Content
Keywords
composite resin, posterior restorations, dentists, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, factors influencing preferences
Abstract
Posterior restorations are among the most common procedures that dentists perform. The process of choosing a material for posterior restorations is complex and depends on a number of factors, such as the patient's specific needs, the dentist's preferences and experience, and the material's price. The two materials that are most commonly used for posterior restorations are amalgam and composite resin. Amalgam has a long history of use and is highly renowned for its durability and toughness. On the other hand, the metallic component can not look good on certain patients. Because composite resin is tooth-colored, it is more aesthetically pleasing than amalgam. However, because it is not as durable as amalgam, it could need to be replaced sooner. Recently, there has been a trend in the use of composite resin for posterior restorations. Multiple factors contribute to this, including patients' increasing demands for aesthetics and advancements in composite resin materials. The purpose of this study was to determine the preferred posterior restorative materials among Saudi Arabian dentists practicing in Jeddah. Find out what factors dentists take into account when choosing a posterior restorative material. A cross-sectional study of 47 dentists was conducted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire gathered information about the professional backgrounds, material preferences, and sociodemographic characteristics of the dentists doing posterior restorative procedures. The majority of dentists (50%) stated that composite resin was the material of choice for posterior restorationsThe most popular choice was glass ionomer cement (20%), followed by amalgam (30%). The most often stated factors influencing the dentists' decisions about the material were the restoration's lifespan (90%) cost (80%), and cosmetic appeal (80%). Significant additional criteria were the patient's age and oral health, the dentist's experience and preferences, and the location and size of the cavity.
References
2. Dilber Bilgili, C. M., & Özarslan, M. (2023). 3D–2D microleakage assessment of preheated bulk-fill composite resin applied with different parameters: a micro-CT analysis. Odontology, 111(6), 941-950.
3. Magne-Taban Milani, S. (2023). Functional and aesthetic guidelines for stress-reduced tooth preparation in composite resin restorations. Odontology, 111(6), 869-876.
4. Al-Harbi, N. A., Al-Nazhan, S. M., & Al-Maslamani, A. (2023). Preference of materials for posterior restorations: A cross-sectional study among dentists in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Odontology, 111(6), 877-882.
5. Ilankovic, H., Pejcic, A., & Ristic, M. (2019). Mercury release from dental amalgam fillings. Environmental Health, 18(1), 96.
6. Harada, Y., Nakaoka, Y., Sano, H., & Burrow, M. F. (2018). Longevity of posterior composite resin restorations: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Dental Research, 97(1), 11-20