Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

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
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

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.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 788-796.e4

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of the American Dental Association (Volume 148, Issue 11)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 2017
  • Published - 11/2017

Publication status

Published - 11/2017

ISSN

0002-8177

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85027395175

Publication metrics

Metrics

SciVal
FWCI
0.71
SciVal
Author count
10
SciVal
citations
4
SciVal
Paper percentile
56
Scopus
citations
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.10
Fractional count
9
Fractional count
0.90
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
33
Citation count
6

Funding Details

FunderFunding number
NIDCR
U19DE022516