Objective: To evaluate dentists’ treatment choices for a crowned tooth with varying degrees of recurrent caries. Materials and Methods: A total of 158 dentists participated in the study. A paper patient case (PPC) depicting a radiograph showing varying degrees of recurrent caries at the crown margin was used: PPC1 = small carious lesion away from crown margin; PPC2 = small carious lesion at crown margin; PPC3 = small carious lesion at crown margin extending onto the root, and PPC4 = large carious lesion at the margin; PPC5–PPC8 had the same carious conditions as PPC1–PPC4, respectively, but the teeth were non-vital. Participants were asked to indicate their choice of treatment from a list of options for each PPC. Crown removal tendency was computed after dichotomization of the responses for the different cases for each participant. Demographic information, educational background and practice characteristics were collected. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression analysis and paired-sample t test were used to analyse the data at a statistically significant level of p < 0.05. Results: For PPC1 and PPC5, most of the participants recommended management without crown removal (p < 0.05). For PPC6, there was wide disagreement about management (p = 0.81). For all other PPCs, the majority of participants chose to remove the crown before making a treatment decision (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the size of the lesion, vitality of the tooth, participants’ age as well as the undergraduate training background of dentists were factors that affected treatment decisions. Conclusion: The data showed a lack of agreement among dentists regarding the management of recurrent caries around crown margins. Size of the lesion, vitality of the tooth, educational training and experience appeared to be the main factors that affected their decisions.

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.