Search

Objectives This study assessed age-related variation in the volume and content of restorative dental care performed by private dentists for adults in Finland in 2012−2017. Methods This retrospective register-based observational study utilized the Social Insurance database of private dental services in 2012 and 2017, including all patients. The data were aggregated into 5-year age groups for 20–89-year-olds; those aged 90+ formed one group. A patient was one who had received at least one treatment, and a restoration patient one who received at least one restoration (direct/indirect), excluding prosthetic crowns. Attendance rate was the proportion of the population treated. Volume of restorative treatment was the proportion of restoration patients among all patients using private dental services. Content of restorative treatment was described as the number of teeth receiving restoration and the size of restoration (number of surfaces restored). Correlation coefficient demonstrated associations between age groups and numbers of restorations. Results Rate of restoration patients was 64.8 % in 2012 and 61.1 % in 2017, the rate for individuals aged under 80 years in each calendar year being smaller than in previous years. Mean number of restorations received per patient was 1.59 in 2012 and 1.42 in 2017, increasing with age (r = 0.85 in 2012; r = 0.95 in 2017). Small restorations dominated; one to two surfaces were covered in 72.3 % and 75.5 % of restorations in 2012 and 2017, respectively. Conclusions Volume and content of restorative dental care for adults vary by age and have decreased slightly over time. Clinical significance Restorative treatments are a prominent part of dental care for adults. This paper sheds light on the entity of restorative dental care for adults visiting private dentists. Variation in restoration volume and content is shown according to patient’s age group, and changes are assessed across six years.

The aim of this patient document-based retrospective study among 25- to 30-year-old Finnish adults was to evaluate longevity of 2- and 3-surface posterior restorations according to type of tooth, size of restoration, and restorative material used.Data were extracted from electronic patient files of the Helsinki City Public Dental Service (PDS), Finland. A total of 5542 2- and 3-surface posterior composite and amalgam restorations were followed indirectly from 2002 to 2015. Longevity of restorations was illustrated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Annual failure rates (AFRs) of the restorations were calculated separately by type of tooth, size, and material. Differences in longevity were statistically tested with log-rank tests.Composite restorations formed the majority (93%). The longest median survival times and the smallest failure rates were found for teeth in the upper jaw, for premolars, and for 2-surface restorations. Median survival time of all restorations was 9.9 years (95% CI 9.6, 10.2) and re-intervention of restorations occurred less often in the maxilla (AFR 4.0%) than in the mandible (AFR 4.7%). Median survival time of composite restorations was greater for 2-surface than for 3-surface restorations: in premolars 12.3 vs. 9.6 years (p0.001) and in molars, 9.2 vs. 6.3 years (p0.001); for molar amalgams the difference (8.0 vs. 6.3 years) was non-significant (p=0.38). Median survival time of 2- and 3-surface restorations in premolars exceeded that in molars (12.0 vs. 8.7 years; p0.001).Longevity of posterior composite multisurface restoration is comparable to amalgam longevity.Regarding material choices for posterior multisurface restorations, composite and amalgam perform quite similarly in molars, 3-surface restoration being challenge for both materials.

Our aim was to evaluate restorative treatment and the use of local anesthetics in free and subsidized public dental care in Helsinki, Finland. Public dental clinics are open to all patients under the age of 36, and to some specific groups above that age. Patients up to age 19 receive all treatment free of charge and others at highly subsidized rates. Data were collected in May 2001 during a maximum 2-week period covering all public dental clinics in Helsinki. A one-page questionnaire was sent to all dentists (n = 140) in clinical fields. The data requested included the patient's gender and year of birth, and details on restorations: which tooth and which surfaces were filled, the reason for placement or replacement, the material used, and use of local anesthetic. The response rate was 96%. Of all restorations (n = 3057) placed, 14% were in primary teeth and in permanent teeth: 17% in premolars, 17% in incisors, and 52% in molars; the restorative material most often used was composite resin (69%). Glass-ionomer/compomers dominated in the primary teeth. Local anesthetic was used least (35%) in patients under 13 years of age. Replacements of restorations accounted for 10% of all in the free service (under 20 years of age) and 46% in subsidized dental care (20 and older). The major reasons for replacement were secondary caries (41%) and fractured or lost restoration (40%).

Using dentist characteristics, our aim was to evaluate the reasons for replacements of fillings, the age of failed restorations in the posterior teeth of young adults, and replacement rates. Altogether 205 patient records from the Public Oral Health Service of the City of Vantaa, Finland were evaluated. Patient age was restricted to between 25 and 30 years and type of tooth to posterior teeth only (third molars excluded). Information collected from the records included the patient's date of birth, latest DMFS and DMF, and the code for background data on the dentist. Details of each filled premolar and molar included the restorative material, location, and surface coverage of filling(s). The age of replacement of filling in premolar(s) or molar(s) was screened retrospectively from patient records. The total number of filled premolars and molars was 1873, with 1969 fillings. Forty percent of the patients had undergone replacement of filling in premolar(s) or molar(s). In all, 140 replacements had been made, accounting for 6.9% of amalgam fillings and 8.5% of tooth-colored fillings. Secondary caries, along with fractures, overhangs, and marginal discrepancy, was the most common reason for replacement. The mean age of failed amalgam fillings was 8.9 years (SD 5.2) and of failed tooth-colored fillings 2.4 years (SD 1.6). In the public sector, female dentists form the majority and their replacement rate for amalgam fillings was twice that of male dentists (7.6% vs 3.2%; P = 0.01).

To evaluate Finnish dentists' perceptions of the longevity of direct dental restorations; to assess the possible impacts of dentists' characteristics on these perceptions; and to compare the present longevity estimates with those of recent European reports.A questionnaire to 592 general practitioners, systematically sampled from the Finnish Dental Association's membership list, was posted in April 2004 and data collection was finished by the end of June. The question "In general, what is your estimate for the mean age of restoration in permanent teeth?" pointed restorations: Class II and MOD composites and amalgam in a posterior tooth and Class III composites in an incisor. Dentists' gender, main work, and year of graduation served as background information. Of the 339 (57%) respondents, only public and private dentists were included; 11 were excluded. Three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for recent reports on restoration longevity. Statistical evaluation was by one-way ANOVA, with p=0.05 as the level of significance.The mean of the estimates for all types of composite was 9.0 years (SD 3.6; 95% CI 8.6-9.3) and 18.7 years for amalgam (SD 7.3; 95% CI 18.0-19.5). Male dentists gave longer estimates than female dentists for posterior composites, but shorter estimates for amalgam. Compared to public dentists, private dentists gave longer estimates for posterior composites. All estimates were longer than those reported in the recent literature.Dentists' perceptions of posterior composite longevity are significantly longer among males than among females and among private than public sector dentists, and exceed the median longevity reported in recent studies.

In this survey we investigated the frequency of use of local anesthesia (LA) in restorative treatment for vital teeth in adults in Finland.A postal questionnaire was mailed to 592 dentists selected by systematic sampling from the membership list of the Finnish Dental Association; 57% responded. The questionnaire inquired "How often do you use local anesthesia when restoring vital teeth in adults?" for three types of primary restorations: class III for incisors, class II for premolars or molars, and class V on gingival margin for premolars or molars. Statistical evaluation included chi-square and logistic regression modeling.For restorative treatment of class III primary restoration for incisors, 21% of the dentists used LA always or almost always, 47% fairly often, 30% occasionally, and 2% rarely or never. For class II restoration for premolars or molars, 25% of dentists used LA always or almost always, 58% used LA fairly often, 16% occasionally, and 1% rarely or never. Controlling for gender and time elapsed since graduation, public dentists were more likely to use LA always or almost always for Class II (OR=2.0) and Class III (OR=1.8) restorations. No such difference appeared for Class V restorations.The majority of dentists have accepted LA as part of their everyday practice, with more widespread use among public dentists. Still, to prevent future dental fear among patients, dentists should emphasize pain-free treatment.