Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do External Factors Affect Materials’ Evaluation and Preferences? Comments Related to Observations from a Focus Group

  • Published:
Current Oral Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To discuss if external factors can affect materials’ evaluation and preferences. Restorations were placed by a group of dentists in standardized cavities in typodont teeth under two conditions: the double-blind test, with unidentified composites, and the conscious test, with materials available in the original packages. Viscosity, adherence to the instrument, ease of sculpture, and general handling were evaluated.

Recent Findings

Ease of use and literature were the most considered criteria, while material’s cost and peer opinion were the ones with the greatest disagreement. Both the degree of satisfaction and the selection of the preferred material were dependent on the condition of the evaluation.

Summary

External factors affect materials’ evaluation and preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, LFS, upon reasonable request.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Ilie N, Hilton TJ, Heintze SD, Hickel R, Watts DC, Silikas N, Stansbury JW, Cadenaro M, Ferracane JL. Academy of Dental Materials guidance-resin composites: part I-mechanical properties. Dent Mater. 2017;33:880–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.04.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ, Stansbury JW, Watts DC, Silikas N, Ilie N, Heintze S, Cadenaro M, Hickel R. Academy of Dental Materials guidance-resin composites: part II-technique sensitivity (handling, polymerization, dimensional changes). Dent Mater. 2017;33:1171–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Opdam N, Frankenberger R, Magne P. From ‘direct versus indirect’ toward an integrated restorative concept in the posterior dentition. Oper Dent. 2016;41:S27–34. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-126-LIT.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alexander G, Hopcraft MS, Tyas MJ, Wong R. Dentists’ restorative decision-making and implications for an ‘amalgamless’ profession. Part 4: clinical factor. Aust Dent J. 2017;62:363–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12519.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bayne SC, Ferracane JL, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ, van Noort R. The evolution of dental materials over the past century: silver and gold to tooth color and beyond. J Dent Res. 2019;98:257–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034518822808.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferracane JL, Lawson NC. Probing the hierarchy of evidence to identify the best strategy for placing class II dental composite restorations using current materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021;33(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaleem M, Satterthwaiti JD, Watts DC. A method for assessing force/work parameters for stickiness of unset resin-composites. Dent Mater. 2011;27:805–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ertl K, Graf A, Watts D, Schedle A. Stickiness of dental resin composite materials to steel, dentin and bonded dentin. Dent Mater. 2010;26:59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.08.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Donovan TE. Promising indeed: the role of ‘“experts”’ and practitioners in the introduction and use of new materials and techniques in restorative dentistry. J Esthet Rest Dent. 2004;16:331–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00063.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonetti D, Johnston M, Clarkson JE, Grimshaw J, Pitts NB, Eccles M, Steen N, Thomas R, Maclennan G, Glidewell L, Walker A. Applying psychological theories to evidence-based clinical practice: identifying factors predictive of placing preventive fissure sealants. Implement Sci. 2010;8:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Matthews DC, McNeil K, Brillant M, Tax C, Maillet P, McCulloch CA, Glogauer M. Factors influencing adoption of new technologies into dental practice: a qualitative study. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2016;1:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084415627129.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mallinson DJ, Hatemi PK. The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Richardson DC. Social psychology for dummies. Hoboken: Wiley; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shaw K, Martins R, Hadis MA, Burke T, Palin W. ‘Own-label’ versus branded commercial dental resin composite materials: mechanical and physical property comparisons. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2016;24:122–9. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01559Shaw08.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwendicke F, Stolpe M. Restoring root-canal treated molars: cost-effectiveness-analysis of direct versus indirect restorations. J Dent. 2018;18:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G, Stolpe M, Krois J. Amalgam alternatives: cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis. J Dent Res. 2018;97:1317–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034518782671.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwendicke F, Kramer EJ, Krois J, Meyer-Lueckel H, Wierichs RJ. Long-term costs of post-restorations: 7-year practice-based results from Germany. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(4):2175–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03529-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Braga MM, Machado GM, Rocha ES, ViganÓ ME, Pontes LRA, Raggio DP. How can we associate an economic evaluation with a clinical trial? Braz Oral Res. 2020;34 Suppl 2:e076. This review presents fundamental basic elements to be considered in studies related to the influence of economic aspects on clinical aspects.

  19. Asch SE. Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am. 1955;193:31–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thyvalikakath T, Song M, Schleyer T. Perceptions and attitudes toward performing risk assessment for periodontal disease: a focus group exploration. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1):90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0550-2. It presents an interesting example of the application of the use of focus groups.

  21. Kredo T, Cooper S, Abrams A, Muller J, Volmink J, Atkins S. Using the behavior change wheel to identify barriers to and potential solutions for primary care clinical guideline use in four provinces in South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):965. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3778-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Davis AL, Zare H, McCleary R, Kanwar O, Tolbert E, Gaskin DJ. Maryland dentists’ perceptions and attitudes toward dental therapy. J Public Health Dent. 2020;80(3):227–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.12372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heft MW, Fox CH, Duncan RP. Assessing the translation of research and innovation into dental practice. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2020;5:262–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084419879391. Demonstrates that innovations that are directly related to clinical procedures are considered impactful and that future research should consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception aspects.

Download references

Funding

The work was supported by DFL Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, Veiga de Almeida University, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Luis Felipe J. Schneider, Andrea Soares Quirino & Larissa Maria Cavalcante

  2. School of Dentistry, Federal Fluminense University, Niterói, RJ, Brazil

    Luis Felipe J. Schneider & Larissa Maria Cavalcante

  3. Núcleo de Pesquisa de Biomateriais Odontológicos, Centro de Saúde Veiga de Almeida, Praça da Bandeira 149, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Luis Felipe J. Schneider

  4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Biomaterials and Biomechanics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Jack L. Ferracane

Authors
  1. Luis Felipe J. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Soares Quirino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larissa Maria Cavalcante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jack L. Ferracane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Felipe J. Schneider.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Luis Felipe Schneider declares that he has received a consultant honorarium from DFL Company. Andrea Soares Quirino declares that she has no conflict of interest. Larissa Maria Cavalcante declares that she has no conflict of interest. Jack Ferracane declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schneider, L.F.J., Quirino, A.S., Cavalcante, L.M. et al. Do External Factors Affect Materials’ Evaluation and Preferences? Comments Related to Observations from a Focus Group. Curr Oral Health Rep 10, 1–7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-023-00328-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-023-00328-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation