Abstract Clinical interventions in dental practice should be determined based on the best scientific evidence available. Well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide important evidence supporting the efficacy of interventions and are usually considered as the best primary evidence. However, the strict criteria adopted by most RCTs reduce their external validity since some findings from these studies might not work under usual conditions. On the other hand, practice-based research (PBR) studies have been designed to better define the effectiveness of clinical interventions under settings closer to “real-world” conditions. Therefore, this review aimed to describe different PBR designs discussing some advantages and limitations of such studies. The stimulus to organization PBR networks is discussed since the studies performed by these networks involve large number of clinicians and important conclusions can be drawn. Designs of observational studies including surveys and cohort studies based on practice are presented. Survey methods are important to know the behavior of practitioners regarding diagnostic and decision of treatment. Cohorts allow assessing different cofounders contributing to some outcome since large sample sizes and long follow-up periods can be observed in some of these studies. Pragmatic trials designed to take place in real-world clinical practice settings are also discussed as a useful design to assess the effectiveness of clinical interventions. In conclusion, this review sought to present PBR studies as alternative designs to answer clinical questions, but not replacing randomized clinical trials.

Abstract Composites resins have become the first choice for direct anterior and posterior restorations. The great popularity is related to their esthetic appearance and reduced need of sound tissue removal as compared with former treatments. Several studies have demonstrated that composite restorations may last long in clinical service. In this review we discuss the factors playing a role on the long-term longevity. Composite restorations have demonstrated a good clinical performance with annual failure rates varying from 1% to 3% in posterior teeth and 1% to 5% in anterior teeth. Factors related to the patients such as caries risk and occlusal stress risk, in addition to socioeconomic factors, may affect the survival significantly. Characteristics of the clinical operators, particularly their decision making when it comes to observing or approaching an existing restoration, are decisive for longevity. Cavity features such as the number of restored walls, composite volume, and presence of endodontic treatment are of major importance and may dictate the service time of the restorative approach. The choice of restorative composite seems to have a minor effect on longevity provided that appropriate technical procedures are used. The main reasons for failure in posterior teeth are secondary caries and fracture (restoration or tooth/restoration), while in anterior teeth esthetic concerns are the main reasons leading to restoration failures. Composite resin restorations can be considered a reliable treatment as long as both the professional and the patient are aware of the factors involved in restoration failures.

Resumo O objetivo do presente estudo foi investigar a taxa de sucesso e de sobrevivência de dentes restaurados e tratados endodonticamente (DTE) em uma clínica privada e relacionar com índices periodontais. Dados de 360 restaurações realizadas em DTE realizadas entre 2000 e 2011 foram coletados. As datas das intervenções, como restaurações, reparos, substituições e extrações foram registradas. Ainda, informações gerais relacionadas aos pacientes, aos dentes envolvidos e ao estado periodontal foram também coletadas. A taxa de sucesso foi analisada utilizando o método estatístico Kaplan-Meier e uma análise multivariada do tipo regressão de Cox foi realizada para avaliar variáveis que influenciaram na taxa de sucesso e de sobrevivência. Depois de um período de observação médio de 4,34 anos (0,6-11,6 anos), 19 dentes foram extraídos e 27 restaurações precisaram de reparo ou substituição. De acordo com a regressão de Cox, o aumento na profundidade de bolsa periodontal do dente resulta em um maior risco de falha (p=0,012). Em conclusão, a profundidade de bolsa periodontal foi considerada como um fator significativo na sobrevivência de dentes restaurados e tratados endodonticamente.

Abstract The aim of the present study was to investigate the success and survival of restored endodontically treated teeth (ETT) in a general practice environment related to periodontal parameters. Data from 360 restored ETT treated between 2000 and 2011 were collected. Dates of interventions like restorations, repairs, replacements and extractions were recorded. Additionally, general information about patients and dentitions as well as periodontal status was recorded. Success was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier statistics and a multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to assess variables influencing success and survival. After a mean observation time of 4.34 years (range 0.6 - 11.6 years), 19 teeth were extracted and 27 restorations needed repair or replacement. According to the Cox regression, increasing maximum pocket depth of the tooth resulted in a higher risk for failure (p=0.012). In conclusion, periodontal pocket depth was found to be a significant factor in the survival of restored ETT.

The aim of this study was to evaluate if clinical experience, whether in relation to length of practice time and/or level of specialization influences the dentist’s preference for using posts to restore endodontically treated teeth. A cross sectional study was carried out using a questionnaire with dentists (n = 276) in Pelotas, southern Brazil. Data were collected regarding clinical experience, post-graduate training, and variables related to restorations (posts/cements and use of rubber dam) for endodontically treated teeth. The data were submitted to a descriptive analysis and associations were tested. The response rate was 68%. Cast metal posts (24.53%), glass fiber posts (20.75%) and resin cement (66.67%) were the most commonly selected materials. In relation to rubber dams, 93.05% of the dentists were found not use them to lute posts. There was a significant association between the level of training of post-graduate dentists and the type of post used (p = 0.027), in that dentists without post-graduate training used cast metal posts more frequently, whereas dentists with post-graduate training reported glass fiber posts as their first choice. The results of the study showed that dentists preferred cast metal posts, glass fiber posts and resin cement. Continuing education influenced the decision of the dentists on their choice of dental posts.

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar as possíveis opções restauradoras para dentes posteriores. Além disso, foi avaliada a possível relação entre tempo de formação e grau de formação profissional com suas escolhas. Este estudo transversal foi realizado a partir de questionários respondidos por cirurgiões-dentistas da cidade de Pelotas/RS. Foram avaliadas variáveis sociodemográficas, nível de especialização e ano de graduação. Além disso, foram obtidas informações sobre a primeira opção restauradora para dentes posteriores, tipo de resina composta e uso de isolamento absoluto. Dados foram submetidos à análise descritiva, e as associações foram testadas por meio do teste de Chi-quadrado ou do teste exato de Fisher, quando apropriado. A taxa de resposta foi de 68%. Os cirurgiões-dentistas, em sua maioria, escolheram o uso de resina composta como a primeira opção restauradora para dentes posteriores. Em relação ao tipo de resina usada, a maioria dos profissionais escolheu a resina microhíbrida; e apenas 42.6% utilizou isolamento absoluto para a realização da restauração posterior. Cirurgiões-dentistas com mais tempo de graduação utilizaram menos resina composta para dentes posteriores (p=0.014). Cirurgiões-dentistas que frequentaram cursos de pós-graduação usaram mais isolamento absoluto (p=0.006). Restauração direta de resina composta foi a primeira opção de tratamento restaurador para dentes posteriores; resina composta microhíbrida foi o tipo de resina preferido pelos cirurgiões-dentistas e o uso de isolamento absoluto para realização de restaurações posteriores não foi frequente. Tempo desde a graduação e grau de especialização influenciaram a escolha dos cirurgiões-dentistas.

The aims of this study were to evaluate the materials available for posterior restorations and to assess whether clinical experience time and post-graduate training influence dentists' choices. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire with closed questions applied to dentists (n=276) of a mid-sized city of the southern Brazil. Information was collected regarding sociodemographic variables, level of specialization, time since graduation and working place. In addition, options regarding posterior restorations including the first choice of material, type of composite resin (if used) and use of rubber dam were also collected data. Data were submitted to descriptive analysis and the associations were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests (α=0.05). The response rate was 68% (187). Direct composite resin was broadly indicated (73.2%) as the first-choice for posterior restorations. Most professionals used microhybrid composite (74.5%) and 42.6% of the participants used rubber dam for placement of posterior composite restorations. Dentists with more time of clinical practice used less composite (p=0.014). Specialists used more frequently rubber dam to restore posterior teeth than did non-specialists (p=0.006). The results of this survey revealed that direct composite was the first choice of dentists for posterior restorations; microhybrid was the preferred type of composite and the use of rubber dam for composite resin placement in posterior teeth was not frequent; time since graduation and level of specialization affected dentists' choices.