Table 1.
Descriptive results of the participants' responses
| Case description | Case reference number | Needs cuspal coverage (%) | Does not need cuspal coverage (%) | Unsure of the answer (%) | Similarity in decision making (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vital teeth | |||||
| An occlusal cavity with axial wall thickness of ≥2 mm. | V1 (m) | 5 | 95 | — | ≥75 |
| A MO/DO cavity with axial wall thickness of ≥2 mm. | V2 (m) | 16.7 | 76.7 | 6.7 | ≥75 |
| A MO/DO cavity with axial wall thickness of <2 mm (molar). | V3 (m) | 66.7 | 30 | 3.3 | <75 |
| A MO/DO cavity with axial wall thickness of <2 mm (premolar). | V3 (p) | 33.3 | 55 | 11.7 | <75 |
| A MOD cavity regardless of the axial wall thickness (molar). | V4 (m) | 56.7 | 16.7 | 26.7 | <75 |
| A MOD cavity regardless of the axial wall thickness (premolar). | V4 (p) | 53.3 | 41.7 | 5 | <75 |
| Endodontically treated teeth | |||||
| An occlusal cavity with axial wall thickness of ≥2 mm. | E1 (m) | 8.3 | 88.3 | 3.3 | ≥75 |
| A MO/DO cavity with axial wall thickness of ≥2 mm (molar). | E2 (m) | 71.7 | 26.7 | 1.7 | <75 |
| A MO/DO cavity with axial wall thickness of ≥2 mm (premolar). | E2 (p) | 51.7 | 41.7 | 6.7 | <75 |
| A MO/DO cavity with axial wall thickness of <2 mm (molar). | E3 (m) | 75 | 21.7 | 3.3 | ≥75 |
| A MO/DO cavity with axial wall thickness of <2 mm (premolar). | E3 (p) | 96.7 | 3.3 | — | ≥75 |
| A MOD cavity regardless of the axial wall thickness. | E4 (m) | 88.3 | 5 | 6.7 | ≥75 |
| Tooth structure loss beyond an MOD cavity. | E5 (m) | 98.3 | 1.7 | — | ≥75 |
Abbreviations: MOD, mesio‐occlusal‐distal; MO/DO, mesio‐occlusal/disto‐occlusal.
Bold emphasis, is to indicate the clinical situations in which less than 75% of the dentists agreed on a decision (i.e less than 75% of the dentists made similar decisions on whether cuspal coverage is needed or not).