Sectional matrix techniques offer more predictable solutions to achieving contact areas when placing direct interproximal posterior composites than circumferential matrix techniques, resulting in reduced reported complaints of food packing from patients. Despite this, a large majority of UK dentists and therapists don't currently use them. Sectional matrix systems are technique-sensitive to use, which can be a barrier to implementation for inexperienced users. The matrices can easily distort during their placement and stabilisation and when placing the restorative material. This can result in unwanted, clinically relevant problems in the resulting restorations, some of which may not be discernible once they have occurred. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of sectional matrices and the processes and techniques involved in their use, before discussing the potential for distortion at each step. It offers solutions to some of the commonly seen problems which will provide more predictable outcomes for those already using these techniques and encourage non-users to add them to their armamentarium.

Aim To investigate attitudes and approaches of UK primary care dentists to carrying out vital pulp treatment (VPT) after carious exposure and with additional signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis. Methodology An electronic questionnaire was openly distributed via publicly funded (NHS) local dental committees, corporate dental service‐providers, professional societies and social media. Principally NHS practitioners and those from mixed and private practice were targeted, in addition to community and military dental officers, and dental therapists. Participants were asked questions relating to several clinical scenarios, with responses analysed using descriptive statistics. χ2 tests with sequential Bonferroni correction were used to explore variables including the method of remuneration, practitioner type (dentist/therapist), postgraduate qualification(s), place of graduation and years since qualification. Variables with a relationship p ≤ .2 were selected for backwards likelihood ratio logistic modelling. Results In total, 648 primary care practitioners were included for analysis. Calcium hydroxide (CH) was most frequently used for direct pulp caps (DPCs) (398/600; 66.3%) with calcium silicate cements (CSCs) less frequently used (119/600; 19.8%). Rubber dam was used by 222/599 (37.1%) practitioners. A definitive pulpotomy for the management of teeth with signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis was selected by 65/613 (10.6%) dentists. The principal barrier for the provision of definitive pulpotomies was a lack of training (602/612; 98.4%). Regression analysis identified NHS practitioners as a good predictor for using CH for DPCs, having shorter emergency appointments, limited access to magnification and not using rubber dam. Non‐UK graduates were more likely to select CSCs, appropriately control pulpal haemorrhage, undertake appropriate postoperative evaluation and use rubber dam. Conclusions Practitioners deviated from evidence‐based guidelines in a number of aspects including material selection, asepsis and case selection. A number of other challenges exist in primary care in providing predictable VPTs, including lack of time and access to magnification. These were most evident in NHS practice, potentially exacerbating existing social health inequalities. Possible inconsistencies in the UK undergraduate curriculum were supported by a lack of association between years since qualification and technique employed as well as the fact that non‐UK graduates and dentists with postgraduate qualifications adhered more to evidence‐based VPT guidelines.

Introduction: A European Union amalgam phase-down has recently been implemented. Publicly funded health care predominates in the United Kingdom with the system favoring amalgam use. The current use of amalgam and its alternatives has not been fully investigated in the United Kingdom. Objectives: The study aimed to identify direct posterior restorative techniques, material use, and reported postoperative complication incidence experienced by primary care clinicians and differences between clinician groups. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary care clinicians through British dentist and therapist associations (11,092 invitations). The questionnaire sought information on current provision of direct posterior restorations and perceived issues with the different materials. Descriptive statistical and hypothesis testing was performed. Results: Dentists’ response rate was 14% and therapists’ estimated minimum response rate was 6% (total N = 1,513). The most commonly used restorative material was amalgam in molar teeth and composite in premolars. When placing a direct posterior mesio-occluso-distal restoration, clinicians booked on average 45% more time and charged 45% more when placing composite compared to amalgam ( P < 0.0001). The reported incidences of food packing and sensitivity following the placement of direct restorations were much higher with composite than amalgam ( P < 0.0001). Widely recommended techniques, such as sectional metal matrix use for posterior composites, were associated with reduced food packing ( P < 0.0001) but increased time booked ( P = 0.002). Conclusion: Amalgam use is currently high in the publicly funded sector of UK primary care. Composite is the most used alternative, but it takes longer to place and is more costly. Composite also has a higher reported incidence of postoperative complications than amalgam, but time-consuming techniques, such as sectional matrix use, can mitigate against food packing, but their use is low. Therefore, major changes in health service structure and funding and posterior composite education are required in the United Kingdom and other countries where amalgam use is prevalent, as the amalgam phase-down continues. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study presents data on the current provision of amalgam for posterior tooth restoration and its directly placed alternatives by primary care clinicians in the United Kingdom, where publicly funded health care with copayment provision predominates. The information is important to manage and plan the UK phase-down and proposed phase-out of amalgam and will be of interest to other, primarily developing countries where amalgam provision predominates in understanding some of the challenges faced.

No abstract

Introduction: Amalgam use has recently been phased down, and the potential for a phase-out is being investigated. Objectives: The study aimed to identify knowledge of the phase-down and opinions of a potential phase-out of amalgam by UK primary care clinicians and assess their confidence in using different materials in different situations. Methods: An anonymized, prepiloted cross-sectional e-survey was used to assess primary care clinicians’ knowledge and opinions of the amalgam phase-down and potential phase-out and their confidence in using amalgam and the alternatives in different situations. In total, 11,902 invitations were distributed through British dentist and therapist associations. Prior hypotheses were tested alongside descriptive statistics. Results: Response rate was 13% ( n = 1,513). Knowledge of the amalgam phase-down was low, with just 3% clinicians correctly identifying all patient groups in whom amalgam use should be avoided in the United Kingdom. Postgraduate education on posterior composite placement was high (88%), but a large majority had personal and patient-centered concerns over the suitability of the alternatives and lacked confidence when placing composite in comparison to amalgam in difficult situations ( P < 0.0001). Logistic regressions revealed that the best predictors of high confidence in placing mesio-occluso-distal composites and composites in difficult situations were being a private general dentist or being primarily a composite user. Conclusion: Primary care clinicians have major personal and patient-centered concerns regarding the amalgam phase-down (of which they have limited knowledge) and potential phase-out. Many lack confidence in using the alternative, composite, to restore posterior teeth in difficult situations, whereas confidence in using amalgam in similar situations is high. Effective education of clinicians and understanding patients’ needs, alongside policy changes, are required to enable a successful amalgam phase-down and potential phase-out. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study shows that UK primary care clinicians are worried about the phase-down of amalgam for themselves and their patients. Many lack confidence in the alternative, composite, when used in difficult situations, which is in stark contrast to amalgam. Knowledge of the phase-down is limited. There is a need for more effective education of clinicians, an understanding of patients’ values, and policy changes to ensure the success of the phase-down and potential phase-out of amalgam.