2009 Volume 52 Issue 6 Pages 483-492
The purpose of this study was to investigate the current status of minimal intervention dentistry (MID) in clinical practice. We surveyed 133 dentists working at Kyushu University Dental Hospital about MID. The questionnaire included color illustrations of two carious cavities: a small distal carious cavity in a mandibular second premolar (Case 1, an example of a vital tooth) and a large mesio-occlusal-distal cavity in a mandibular first molar (Case 2, an example of a non-vital tooth after root canal filling). The questionnaire asked: 1. Do you know about MID? 2. Do you intend to use MID to restore decayed teeth? 3. What kinds of restorations would you apply in cases 1 and 2, and why? Eighty-seven percent of respondents (116) had knowledge of MID; 69% and 27% of these respondents intended to use MID for vital and non-vital teeth, respectively. Of all 133 respondents, 59% and 23% selected restorations based on MID (MI restorations) for Cases 1 and 2, respectively. There was a positive relationship between the selection of MI restorations and MID recognition, and between the selection of MI restorations and the intention to use MID (p<0.05), except for the former relationship in non-vital teeth. The reasons respondents did not use MI restorations for vital teeth include: They were accustomed to treatment procedures for conventional restorations (restorations based on GV Black's concept) and prevention of recurrent caries and acquiring retention force. The reasons for non-vital teeth were prevention of tooth fracture and acquiring retention force. These results indicate that, in clinical practice, MID is used much less in non-vital teeth than in vital teeth. It was also suggested that MID recognition did not result in an increase in the clinical use of MID for non-vital teeth, but did so for cases of vital teeth. Therefore, further study is required to clarify the factors limiting the increased clinical use of MID for non-vital teeth.
