Table 4.
Treatment options chosen by DPBRN practitioner-investigators when evaluating an existing composite restoration that interfaces with an enamel surface (scenario 2), by dentist and practice characteriics
| N=509 | No treatment |
Preventive treatment only |
Minimally- invasive intervention only |
Replace the entire restoration only |
Minimally- invasive intervention and preventive |
Replace the entire restoration and preventive |
p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Years since graduation from dental school Mean (SD) |
19.9 (10.5) | 20.0 (8.6) | 20.5 (9.5) | 20.9 (11.5) | 18.0 (10.0) | 19.2 (10.8) | .4898 |
| Gender of dentist | .08 | ||||||
| Male (420) | 10% | 5% | 35% | 25% | 14% | 11% | |
| Female (89) | 11% | 10% | 29% | 18% | 23% | 9% | |
| Region | <.0001 * | ||||||
| AL/MS (292) | 7% | 5% | 32% | 32% | 12% | 12% | |
| FL/GA (99) | 11% | 4% | 41% | 21% | 11% | 12% | |
| MN (31) | 13% | 17% | 35% | 6% | 26% | 3% | |
| PDA (51) | 8% | 8% | 29% | 0% | 43% | 12% | |
| SK (36) | 31% | 7% | 42% | 14% | 3% | 3% | |
| Type of practice | <.0001 * | ||||||
| SPP (412) | 9% | 5% | 34% | 30% | 11% | 11% | |
| LGP (78) | 9% | 10% | 32% | 1% | 39% | 9% | |
| PHP (19) | 32% | 5% | 37% | 5% | 16% | 5% | |
| Number of patients who self-pay (pay out of their own resources) |
.106 | ||||||
| 14% | 22% | 36% | 0% | 21% | 8% | ||
| 0 % (14) | 9% | 5% | 31% | 26% | 19% | 10% | |
| 1–30% (235) | 9% | 5% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 13% | |
| 31–50% (126) | 15% | 4% | 36% | 23% | 13% | 9% | |
| >51% (109) | |||||||
| Whether or not caries risk is done as a routine part of treatment planning |
.001 * | ||||||
| 11% | 6% | 35% | 20% | 16% | 12% | ||
| 8% | 4% | 34% | 37% | 11% | 6% | ||
| Yes (354) | |||||||
| No (132) |
statistical significance
Bivariate analyses were conducted on the following explanatory variables: practice busyness, waiting time for restorative treatment, patients dental insurance coverage, age and racial/ethnic distribution of patients seen in the practice, percent of patient contact time spent each day doing restorative work, percent of patient contact time spent each day doing esthetic work, percent of patient contact time spent each day doing extractions. None of the variables were significant. Additionally, logistic regression analyses were done for both outcomes, which included the following explanatory variables: dentist’s year since graduation from dental school and gender, practice busyness, type of practice, age distribution of patients, number of patients who self-pay (pay out of their own resources), percent of patient contact time spent each day doing restorative work, percent of patient contact time spent each day doing esthetic work, percent of patient contact time spent each day doing extractions, and whether or not caries risk is done as a routine part of treatment planning. The results of the logistic regression did not differed from those found in the bivariate analyses.