INSIGHTS OF DENTAL PRACTITIONERS WITH RESPECT TO GENDER ON COMPOSITES AS A RESTORATIVE MATERIAL: REASONS FOR SELECTION AND CAUSES OF FAILURE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71000/a4pckq56Keywords:
Composite Resins, Dental Esthetics, Dental Restoration Failure, Dentists, Gender Identity, Polymerization, Tooth ConservationAbstract
Background: Composite resin restorations have become the preferred choice in modern restorative dentistry due to their esthetic appeal, conservative preparation requirements, and reliable bonding to tooth structure. Despite these advantages, the selection of restorative material may be influenced by various practitioner-related factors, including clinical training, experience, and demographic variables such as gender. Understanding whether such factors affect clinical decision-making is vital for improving educational strategies and standardizing care.
Objective: To assess the association between the gender of dental practitioners and their reasons for selecting and perceived causes of failure of composite resin restorations.
Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the College of Dentistry, Sharif Medical and Dental College, Lahore, over a one-year period from July 2020 to July 2021. A total of 150 dentists were enrolled using convenience sampling. Data were collected through a pre-validated structured questionnaire after obtaining ethical approval (SMDC/SMRC/199-21) and informed consent. Inclusion criteria required at least six months of clinical experience with composites. The association between gender and both the reasons for choosing and perceived failure causes of composite restorations was analyzed using the Fisher exact test via SPSS version 23, with a p-value ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results: Out of 150 participants, 59% were male and 91% female. A statistically non-significant association was found between gender and the reason for choosing composites (p = 0.457). Most males (57.6%) and females (59.3%) selected composites due to tooth structure conservation. Similarly, polymerization shrinkage was identified as the leading cause of failure by 57.6% of males and 65.9% of females (p = 0.580).
Conclusion: Although no statistically significant gender-based differences were observed, both male and female dentists largely preferred composites for their conservative nature, and identified polymerization shrinkage as the main clinical challenge.
References
Almulhim KS, AlSheikh R, Abdalla M, Haridy R, Bugshan A, Smith S, et al. Toward esthetically and biomechanically reliable anterior resin composite restorations: Current clinical experiences among dental practitioners in Saudi Arabia. F1000Res. 2023;12:359.
Uhlen MM, Tseveenjav B, Wuollet E, Furuholm J, Ansteinsson V, Mulic A, et al. Stainless-steel crowns in children: Norwegian and Finnish dentists' knowledge, practice and challenges. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):190.
Hickel R, Mesinger S, Opdam N, Loomans B, Frankenberger R, Cadenaro M, et al. Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations-recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(6):2573-92.
Drachev SN, Galieva AS, Yushmanova TN, Polivanaya EA, Stangvaltaite-Mouhat L, Al-Mahdi R, et al. Restorative treatment decisions for carious lesions: Do Russian dentists and dental students apply minimal intervention dentistry? BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):638.
Girotto LPS, Dotto L, Pereira GKR, Bacchi A, Sarkis-Onofre R. Restorative preferences and choices of dentists and students for restoring endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review of survey studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(4):489-.e5.
Hatipoğlu Ö, Martins JFB, Karobari MI, Taha N, Aldhelai TA, Ayyad DM, et al. Repair versus replacement of defective direct dental restorations: A multinational cross-sectional study with meta-analysis. J Dent. 2024;148:105096.
Awad MM, Alradan M, Alshalan N, Alqahtani A, Alhalabi F, Salem MA, et al. Placement of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Dental Practitioners in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(23).
Usta SN, Cömert-Pak B, Karaismailoğlu E, Eymirli A, Deniz-Sungur D. Patterns of Post-Endodontic Restoration: A Nationwide Survey of Dentists in Turkey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3).
Khalaf ME, Alyahya A, Qudeimat MA. Management Thresholds for Molars With Occlusal Noncavitated Caries Lesions. Int Dent J. 2023;73(2):251-8.
Karkoutly M, Hamza B, Al Batal S, Al Barazi A, Bshara N. Knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and clinical experiences on molar incisor hypomineralization among Syrian pediatric dentists and general dental practitioners: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):561.
Gunwal MK, Bagda K, Gupta S, Oak AM. Knowledge, awareness and perception amongst dental practitioners towards natural tooth fragment reattachment procedures in clinical practice-A cross-sectional survey. Dent Traumatol. 2021;37(6):779-85.
Fletcher R, Harrison W, Crighton A. Dental material allergies and oral soft tissue reactions. Br Dent J. 2022;232(9):620-5.
Khanna R, Han J, Liang E, Lee CY, Manakil J. The current attitudes and practices of dentists in Australia towards composite repair: A cross-sectional survey study. Aust Dent J. 2025;70(1):49-57.
Lippert VF, Andrade JP, Spohr AM, Kunrath MF. Complete oral rehabilitation with direct and indirect composite resins: a minimally invasive approach on severely compromised teeth. Quintessence Int. 2022;53(10):824-31.
Narbutaite J, Santamaría RM, Innes N, Splieth CH, Maciulskiene V. Comparison of three management approaches for dental caries in primary molars: A two-year randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2024;150:105390.
Liu B, Roessler D, Morse Z. Attitudes regarding a warranty and the expected longevity of dental treatment amongst New Zealand dentists, dental students, and patients: a mixed methods survey. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):74.
Silva CO, Lopes LG, Torres É M, Teixeira RAG, Barata TJE, Carvalho AA, et al. Attitudes of dentists toward maintaining, repairing, or replacing direct composite resin restorations. Gen Dent. 2022;70(3):72-7.
Pizzolotto L, Moraes RRJDJ. Resin composites in posterior teeth: clinical performance and direct restorative techniques. 2022;10(12):222.
Zafar A, Javed S, Akram N, Naqvi SAR. Health risks of mercury. Mercury Toxicity Mitigation: Sustainable Nexus Approach: Springer; 2024. p. 67-92.
Moraes RR, Cenci MS, Moura JR, Demarco FF, Loomans B, Opdam NJCOHR. Clinical performance of resin composite restorations. 2022;9(2):22-31.
Bompolaki D, Lubisich EB, Fugolin APJDC. Resin-based composites for direct and indirect restorations: Clinical applications, recent advances, and future trends. 2022;66(4):517-36.
Wierichs RJ, Kramer E, Meyer-Lückel HJJodr. Risk factors for failure of direct restorations in general dental practices. 2020;99(9):1039-46.
Lehmann A, Nijakowski K, Jankowski J, Donnermeyer D, Ramos JC, Drobac M, et al. Clinical difficulties related to Direct Composite restorations: a multinational survey. 2025;75(2):797-806.
Rathi SD, Nikhade P, Chandak M, Motwani N, Rathi C, Chandak MJJEMDS. Microleakage in composite resin restoration-a review article. 2020;9(12):1006-11.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fatimah Imran, Maryam Tehreem, Kainat Razzaq, Fahad Nadeem, Nimra Nadeem, Eisha Khalid, Hira butt (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
