Diş hekimlerinin posterior dişlerde amalgam ve kompozit restorasyanları tercih etme sıklığı ve nedenlerinin değerlendirmesi
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2024
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Ege Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Amaç: Restoratif materyallerin diş hekimleri tarafından tercih edilme sıklığı ve nedenlerinin anket aracılığıyla değerlendirilmesidir Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma kapsamında demografik bilgiler, restoratif materyal tercihi, nedenlerini sorgulayan anket hazırlandı ve erişim linki oluşturuldu. Anket 2021-2023 yılları arasında, Türkiye'de 7 coğrafi bölgede aktif mesleki faaliyet gösteren diş hekimlerine uygulandı. Hekimlerden; yaş, cinsiyet, ünvan, uzmanlık alanı, çalışılan süre ve çalışılan kurum sorularına yanıt istendi. Ayrıca kullanılan restoratif materyallerle ilgili 20 soru yöneltildi. Elde edilen veriler kaydedildi ve SPSS (Statistical Package Program for Social Science) 21.0 programından yararlanılarak istatistiksel analiz gerçekleştirildi. Bulgular: Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, klinikte restoratif tedavi uygulayan katılımcıların (n=1159) oklüzal kavitelerde en çok tercih ettiği restoratif materyaller kompozit (%38,9) (4,54±1,19) ve cam iyonomer siman (CİS) (%19,7) (2,30±1,52) olarak tespit edilmiştir. Oklüzal kavitelerde en az tercih edilen restorasyon türünün (%11,4) (1,33±1,28) inley-onley olduğu tespit edilmiştir. İki yönlü kavitelerde en çok tercih edilen restoratif materyaller kompozit (%39,7) (4,44±1,28) ve cam iyonomer siman (CİS) (%17,0) (1,90±1,51) olarak tespit edilmiştir. İki yönlü kavitelerde en az tercih edilen restorasyon türünün (%12,2) (1,33±1,71) inley-onley olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Üç yönlü kavitelerde en çok tercih edilen restorasyon türleri kompozit (%35,0) (4,11±1,45) ve diğer (kron) (%22,1) (2,59±1,75) olarak tespit edilmiştir. Üç yönlü kavitelerde en az tercih edilen restorasyon türünün inley-onley (%13,5) (1,59±1,54) ve cam iyonomer siman (CİS) (% 13,8) (1,62±1,42) olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Klinikte restoratif tedavi uygulayan katılımcıların (n=1159) % 49,8'i restoratif materyal olarak amalgam tercih etmemektedir. Materyal olarak amalgam tercih edilmemesinin en önemli nedenleri sırasıyla estetik olmaması (%73,9), hastanın istememesi (%67,7), klinikte bulunmaması (% 50,1) ve civa içeriği (%46,6) olarak tespit edilmiştir. Klinikte restoratif tedavi uygulayan katılımcıların (n=1159) kompozit restorasyonda en çok karşılaştıkları sorunlar yetersiz kontakt ve II kontur (%69,4) ve postoperatif hassasiyet (%65,0) olarak tespit edilmiştir. Katılımcıların %45,9'u amalgam restorasyonu, %43,7'si kompozit restorasyonu biyolojik açıdan güvenilir bulmaktadır. Sonuç : Günümüzde amalgam ve kompozit rezinler, ülkemizde ulaşılması en kolay ve bu nedenle klinik rutinde en sık kullanılan restoratif materyallerdir. Çalışmamızdan elde edilen veriler; amalgam kullanımı kompozite göre belirgin şekilde daha düşük olmasına rağmen, belli endikasyonlarda amalgam kullanımına devam edildiğini göstermektedir. Restoratif tedavilerde kompozitler çok yüksek oranda tercih edilse de biyolojik güvenilirliğinin diş hekimleri tarafından sorgulandığı görülmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler; amalgam, diş hekimi tercihi, kompozit
Objective: To evaluate the frequency and reasons of preference of restorative materials by dentists via a survey Materials and Methods: Within the scope of the study, a questionnaire was prepared on internet and an access link was created. The survey was applied to dentists working in Turkey between 2021-2023. The age, gender, title, profession, number of years worked, institution of employment were asked. In addition, 20 questions were asked about the restorative materials used. The obtained data were recorded and SPSS (Statistical Package Program for Social Science) 21.0 was used to analyze the data collected. Results: According to the results of the study, composite (38.9%) (4.54±1.19) and glass ionomer cement (CIS) (19.7%) (2.30±1.52) were the most preferred restorative materials in occlusal cavities by the participants (n=1159) who applied restorative treatment in the clinic. The least preferred material in occlusal cavities was inlay-on-lay (11.4%) (1.33±1.28). The most preferred restorative materials in class 2 (OD or OM) cavities were composite (39.7%) (4.44±1.28) and glass ionomer cement (CIS) (17.0%) (1.90±1.51). The least preferred restoration type in class 2 (OD or OM) cavities was inlay-onlay (12.2%) (1.33±1.71). The most preferred restoration type in class 2 MOD cavities were composite (35.0%) (4.11±1.45) and other (crown) (22.1%) (2.59±1.75). The least preferred restoration type in three-way cavities were inlay-onlay (13.5%) (1.59±1.54) and glass ionomer cement (CIS) (13.8%) (1.62±1.42). Among the participants who used restorative materials (n=1159), 49.8% did not prefer amalgam as a restorative material. The most important reasons for not preferring amalgam as a restorative material were determined as unaesthetic (73.9%), patient's unwillingness (67.7%), unavailability in the clinic (50.1%) and mercury content (46.6%), respectively. The most common problems encountered by the participants (n=1159) who performed restorative treatment in the clinic in composite restoration were inadequate contact and contour (69.4%) and postoperative sensitivity (65.0%). 45.9% of the participants declared amalgam restoration and 43.7% declared composite restoration as biologically safe. IV Conclusion: The data obtained from the study showed that although the use of amalgam was lower than the composite, amalgam is still indicated for some situations. Although the composite is highly preferred in restorative treatments, its biological safety seems to be questioned by dentists. Keywords; amalgam, composite, restoration, prefer of dentist
Objective: To evaluate the frequency and reasons of preference of restorative materials by dentists via a survey Materials and Methods: Within the scope of the study, a questionnaire was prepared on internet and an access link was created. The survey was applied to dentists working in Turkey between 2021-2023. The age, gender, title, profession, number of years worked, institution of employment were asked. In addition, 20 questions were asked about the restorative materials used. The obtained data were recorded and SPSS (Statistical Package Program for Social Science) 21.0 was used to analyze the data collected. Results: According to the results of the study, composite (38.9%) (4.54±1.19) and glass ionomer cement (CIS) (19.7%) (2.30±1.52) were the most preferred restorative materials in occlusal cavities by the participants (n=1159) who applied restorative treatment in the clinic. The least preferred material in occlusal cavities was inlay-on-lay (11.4%) (1.33±1.28). The most preferred restorative materials in class 2 (OD or OM) cavities were composite (39.7%) (4.44±1.28) and glass ionomer cement (CIS) (17.0%) (1.90±1.51). The least preferred restoration type in class 2 (OD or OM) cavities was inlay-onlay (12.2%) (1.33±1.71). The most preferred restoration type in class 2 MOD cavities were composite (35.0%) (4.11±1.45) and other (crown) (22.1%) (2.59±1.75). The least preferred restoration type in three-way cavities were inlay-onlay (13.5%) (1.59±1.54) and glass ionomer cement (CIS) (13.8%) (1.62±1.42). Among the participants who used restorative materials (n=1159), 49.8% did not prefer amalgam as a restorative material. The most important reasons for not preferring amalgam as a restorative material were determined as unaesthetic (73.9%), patient's unwillingness (67.7%), unavailability in the clinic (50.1%) and mercury content (46.6%), respectively. The most common problems encountered by the participants (n=1159) who performed restorative treatment in the clinic in composite restoration were inadequate contact and contour (69.4%) and postoperative sensitivity (65.0%). 45.9% of the participants declared amalgam restoration and 43.7% declared composite restoration as biologically safe. IV Conclusion: The data obtained from the study showed that although the use of amalgam was lower than the composite, amalgam is still indicated for some situations. Although the composite is highly preferred in restorative treatments, its biological safety seems to be questioned by dentists. Keywords; amalgam, composite, restoration, prefer of dentist
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Diş Hekimliği, Dentistry
