Use of lining materials under posterior resin composite restorations in the UK

ObjectivesTo investigate opinions on, and current use of lining materials prior to the placement of posterior resin composite restorations by general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the UK. A further objective was to investigate aspects of posterior resin composite restoration placement techniques employed by UK GDPs.MethodsA questionnaire was devised to gain the information sought. It was sent to 500 UK dentists, chosen at random from the register of the General Dental Council.ResultsThree hundred and fifty four replies were received, which gave a response rate of 71%. Eighty two percent of respondents reported placing lining materials in deep cavities to be restored with resin composite. Regarding moderately deep cavities, half of the respondents indicated a preference to place a lining material, whilst 44% were not sure if a lining was required. The remaining 6% did not respond to the question. Of the respondents, 39% reported that they did not place lining materials in shallow cavities. Regarding techniques for posterior resin composite placement, two-step etch and rinse systems were the most common adhesive bonding systems used (60%). The majority of respondents (80%) reported not using rubber dam when restoring posterior teeth with resin composite.ConclusionsThere was considerable confusion about the need to place a lining prior to resin composite restorations placement in moderate depth and shallow cavities, whilst most favoured the placement of a lining in deep posterior cavities. The majority of GDPs may not routinely use rubber dam for the placement of posterior resin composite restorations.Clinical significanceDecision making and operative techniques for cavity linings under posterior composite restorations in moderately deep and deep cavities is contentious among dentists, resulting in a need to generate more convincing, practice-relevant data on the use of lining materials to inform the dental profession.