Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jun;141(6):679–687. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0258

Table 2.

Treatment scenarios and use of preventive agents.

Treatment choice n (%) Child-adult
prevention index
Restoration scenario (n=455)
 Prevention and polish/repair 56 (12%) 18%a
 Prevention only 26 (6%) 38% a
 Polish/repair only 185 (41%) 51%b
 Replace restoration 167 (37%) 54% b
 No treatment 21 (5%) 60% b
Coronal caries scenario (n=463)
 Prevention only 11 (2%) 35% a
 Drill/prevention 230 (51%) 44% a
 No treatment 22 (5%) 51%
 Restoration 201 (53%) 53% b

Nine dentists did not complete the restoration scenario and one failed to complete the coronal caries scenario.

Values with different superscripts are significantly different at p. < .05.

Dentists who endorsed multiple treatment choices are scored as the most invasive treatment (e.g., restoration and a method of prevention are scored as having chosen restoration).

Restoration scenario. Treatment choices included no treatment; fluoride; sealant; chlorhexidine; polish, resurface or repair restoration but not replace; and replace restoration. Coded “not replace”=1 and “replace”=2 in the multivariate models.

Coronal caries scenario. Treatment choices of minimal drilling and sealant, minimal drilling and preventive resin restoration, air abrasion and a sealant, and air abrasion and preventive resin restoration are shown as drill/prevention. Coded “not restore”=1 and “restore”=2 in the multivariate models.