Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns

Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Objectives were to determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown and document crown remake rates. Methods The authors developed a questionnaire that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. The authors showed dentists photographs of 4 impressions and asked them to accept or reject each impression. The authors correlated answers with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory use and crown remake rates. Results The response rate was 83% (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the 4 impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85% agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 52% accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was associated significantly with the clinician's sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produced 18 crowns per month on average, and 9% used in-office milling. Most dentists (59%) reported a remake rate of less than 2%, whereas 17% reported a remake rate greater than 4%. Lower remake rates were associated significantly with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Conclusions Although dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (> 85%), nonclinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Practical Implications These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques with those in this sample when developing best practice protocols.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)788-796.e4
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume148
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

Dentists
Crowns
Tooth
Research
Practice Guidelines

Keywords

  • Crowns
  • dental laboratory
  • impressions
  • practice network
  • remake rates

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns : Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. / The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 148, No. 11, 01.11.2017, p. 788-796.e4.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group. / Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns : Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. In: Journal of the American Dental Association. 2017 ; Vol. 148, No. 11. pp. 788-796.e4.
@article{5fd7192065274ae2a59a7e6d4e498e3c,
title = "Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network",
abstract = "Background Objectives were to determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown and document crown remake rates. Methods The authors developed a questionnaire that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. The authors showed dentists photographs of 4 impressions and asked them to accept or reject each impression. The authors correlated answers with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory use and crown remake rates. Results The response rate was 83{\%} (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the 4 impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85{\%} agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 52{\%} accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was associated significantly with the clinician's sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produced 18 crowns per month on average, and 9{\%} used in-office milling. Most dentists (59{\%}) reported a remake rate of less than 2{\%}, whereas 17{\%} reported a remake rate greater than 4{\%}. Lower remake rates were associated significantly with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Conclusions Although dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (> 85{\%}), nonclinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Practical Implications These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques with those in this sample when developing best practice protocols.",
keywords = "Crowns, dental laboratory, impressions, practice network, remake rates",
author = "{The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group} and McCracken, {Michael S.} and Litaker, {Mark S.} and McCracken, {Michael Scott} and Scott Durand and Sepideh Malekpour and Marshall, {Don G.} and Cyril Meyerowitz and Lauren Carter and Gordan, {Valeria V.} and Gilbert, {Gregg H.}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.adaj.2017.06.015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "148",
pages = "788--796.e4",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns

T2 - Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

AU - The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group

AU - McCracken, Michael S.

AU - Litaker, Mark S.

AU - McCracken, Michael Scott

AU - Durand, Scott

AU - Malekpour, Sepideh

AU - Marshall, Don G.

AU - Meyerowitz, Cyril

AU - Carter, Lauren

AU - Gordan, Valeria V.

AU - Gilbert, Gregg H.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Background Objectives were to determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown and document crown remake rates. Methods The authors developed a questionnaire that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. The authors showed dentists photographs of 4 impressions and asked them to accept or reject each impression. The authors correlated answers with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory use and crown remake rates. Results The response rate was 83% (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the 4 impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85% agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 52% accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was associated significantly with the clinician's sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produced 18 crowns per month on average, and 9% used in-office milling. Most dentists (59%) reported a remake rate of less than 2%, whereas 17% reported a remake rate greater than 4%. Lower remake rates were associated significantly with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Conclusions Although dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (> 85%), nonclinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Practical Implications These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques with those in this sample when developing best practice protocols.

AB - Background Objectives were to determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown and document crown remake rates. Methods The authors developed a questionnaire that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. The authors showed dentists photographs of 4 impressions and asked them to accept or reject each impression. The authors correlated answers with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory use and crown remake rates. Results The response rate was 83% (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the 4 impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85% agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 52% accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was associated significantly with the clinician's sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produced 18 crowns per month on average, and 9% used in-office milling. Most dentists (59%) reported a remake rate of less than 2%, whereas 17% reported a remake rate greater than 4%. Lower remake rates were associated significantly with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Conclusions Although dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (> 85%), nonclinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Practical Implications These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques with those in this sample when developing best practice protocols.

KW - Crowns

KW - dental laboratory

KW - impressions

KW - practice network

KW - remake rates

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027395175&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027395175&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.06.015

DO - 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.06.015

M3 - Article

VL - 148

SP - 788-796.e4

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 11

ER -