Melbourne Dental School - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemDentists' restorative decision-making and implications for an 'amalgamless' profession. Part 5: knowledge factors(WILEY, 2017-12-01)BACKGROUND: A phase-down of amalgam in Australia is possible given the Australian Government intends to ratify the Minamata Convention. There is little research as to the influence of a dentist's knowledge on decision-making, which may be of use when determining the impact of any change. METHODS: An online survey relating to aspects of and attitudes to use of direct restorative materials was distributed to all dentists who were members of the Australian Dental Association or Members or Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. RESULTS: There were 408 respondents. Fifty-eight per cent agreed that there was consistency in undergraduate teaching. Fifty-two per cent stated that there was a difference between undergraduate teaching and the 'real world'. Postgraduate education was ranked the most important influence on decision-making. Ninety-six per cent stated that knowledge of the evidence base is important and 89% believed that they practised evidence-based dentistry. CONCLUSIONS: Dental schools need to maintain teachers' and students' understanding of the evolving technology of direct restorative materials. There is a perceived disconnect between undergraduate teaching and the 'real' world. The evidence base is viewed as confusing, contradictory and not readily understandable. The creation of clinical guidelines would be useful.
-
ItemDentists' restorative decision-making and implications for an 'amalgamless' profession. Part 4: clinical factor(WILEY, 2017-09)BACKGROUND: The Minamata Convention embodies a worldwide reduction in the production and use of mercury and mercury-containing products and processes, including a phase-down of dental amalgam. This will change the approach to the use of direct restorative materials in the near future. There is little research as to the influence of clinical factors on dentists' decision-making which may be of use when determining the impact of any change. METHODS: An online survey relating to aspects of and attitudes to the use of direct restorative materials was distributed to all dentists who were members of the Australian Dental Association and/or members or fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. Data were statistically analysed. RESULTS: There were 408 respondents to the survey. Eighty-seven per cent of respondents (strongly) disagreed that amalgam was a technically more difficult material to place compared with resin composite, 82% (strongly) disagreed that placement time for amalgam was longer than that for resin composite and 69% (strongly) disagreed that amalgam was more difficult to finish than resin composite. Eighty-three per cent of respondents stated they were confident in their ability to place amalgam restorations. Where physical properties were of importance, indirect restorations were preferred (e.g. parafunction) 54%. The factors considered most important when choosing a direct restorative material included moisture control and aesthetics; least important factors were cost and time to place. CONCLUSIONS: There is consensus that amalgam is not more technically difficult to use, place or finish than resin composite and vice versa. There is recognition that both amalgam and resin composite have limitations in terms of physical properties. When choosing a direct restorative material, clinical factors considered to be of greatest importance are moisture control, aesthetics and the need to apply minimally invasive approaches. There is little difference in the opinions of users and non-users of amalgam with respect to these findings.
-
ItemDental educators' attitudes towards the teaching of dental amalgam(WILEY, 2020-05)OBJECTIVE: To ascertain dental educators' attitudes towards the teaching of dental amalgam at dental schools in Australia and identify preferred curricular approaches in a potentially "amalgamless" profession. METHODS: A mixed methods analysis was employed based on an open-ended response survey followed by a closed-ended questionnaire. Identification of key issues from the survey helped frame the questionnaire. Participants included those with expertise in operative and restorative dentistry, with direct involvement in curriculum development or delivery, at Australian dental schools. RESULTS: Participants numbered fifteen and represented seven of the nine dental schools in Australia. Key themes identified and explored included the following: (in)consistency of approach to teaching restorative dentistry; a perceived disconnect between undergraduate study and the "real world"; a need for a focus on teaching of alternatives to dental amalgam (80 per cent (strongly) agreeing); the contradictory nature of the evidence base and literature that is not readily understood; the need for more post-graduate education relating to adhesive restorative materials (86 per cent (strongly) agreeing); the need for dental amalgam to continue to be available; formal understandings (guidelines) as to the use of dental amalgam; dental schools in Australia being heard on these issues; and the relevance of this issue (100 per cent (strongly) agreeing the issue is topical and important). CONCLUSION: There is a broad consensus of dental educators at Australian dental schools as how best to approach the teaching of amalgam if a phase-down is to occur and the issues any such approach may face.
-
ItemDentists' restorative decision-making and implications for an "amalgamless' profession. Part 3: Dentists' attitudes(WILEY-BLACKWELL, 2016-12)BACKGROUND: The Minamata Convention has agreed to a worldwide reduction in the production and use of mercury-containing products and processes. This will change the approach to use of direct restorative materials in the future. There is little research exploring the attitudes of dentists to any change. METHODS: A survey relating to the use of direct restorative materials was distributed to dentists who were members of the Australian Dental Association or Members and Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. Data were statistically analysed. RESULTS: There were 408 respondents. Responses to statements concerning attitudes toward a phase-down of amalgam depended on whether the respondent used amalgam, year of primary dental qualification and association with academia. Thirty per cent of respondents indicated they do not use amalgam. The mean use of amalgam for all direct restorative procedures was 18%. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists are concerned over potential implications of a phase-down of amalgam and much should be done to address these concerns. Many dentists are undecided as to what are the implications, which may reflect a lack of understanding of the issues. It is incumbent on policy-makers to produce and disseminate information relating to the issues identified by this research.