Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Dental practice in the UK in 2015/2016. Part 4: changes since 2002?

Objectives To determine, by means of anonymous self-report questionnaires, the changes in demographic profile, practising details and utilisation of clinical techniques/materials of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the UK between 2002 and 2015. Method A wide-ranging, validated questionnaire, designed to elicit information on the practising arrangements and techniques and materials used, was distributed to UK-based GDPs in 2002, 2008 and 2015 with a request that they complete the questionnaire and return it by post in the reply-paid envelope to the corresponding author. Results Questionnaires were distributed by post to 1,000 UK-based GDPs in 2004 and 2008, with an additional 500 questionnaires being distributed at postgraduate meetings in 2015. Response rates of 70%, 66% and 78% were achieved, respectively. Of the respondents, 73% were male in 2002, while 67% and 60% were male in 2008 and 2015, respectively. In 2002, 65% were practice principals, falling to 51% in 2015. Regarding how patients paid for their dental care, 86% of respondents in 2002 treated patients within the NHS arrangements, compared with 57% and 50% in 2008 and 2015, respectively. The data collected in 2015 indicated that 55% of respondents had an intra-oral camera; while, with regard to recently introduced concepts and techniques, 80% used nickel-titanium files, 47% used zirconia-based bridgework, 25% used tricalcium silicate, and 17% used CAD/CAM restoration. Of great interest, perhaps, is the response to digital radiography/imaging, with the results indicating that, by 2015, 74% of respondents used this form of radiography. Conclusion Results from the three surveys indicated that NHS service provision has dropped to 50%. Regarding the staffing of dental practices, just over half the respondents were practice principals. The results also indicated that UK dentists continue to be innovative and forward-looking in the techniques that they employ.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Steele J G, Treasure E T, O'Sullivan I, Morris J, Murray J J. Adult dental health survey 2009: transformations in British oral health 1968-2009. Br Dent J 2012; 212: 523-527.

  2. 2.

    Burke F J T, Wilson N H F, Christensen G J, Cheung S W, Brunton P A. Contemporary dental practice in the UK: demographic and practising arrangements. Br Dent J 2005; 198: 39-43.

  3. 3.

    Brunton P A, Burke F J T, Sharif M O, Muirhead E K, Creanor S. Contemporary dental practice in the UK: demographic details and practising arrangements in 2008. Br Dent J 2012; 212: 11-15.

  4. 4.

    Burke F J T, Wilson N H F, Brunton P A, Creanor S. Dental practice in the UK in 2015Part 1: demographic and practice arrangements. Br Dent J 2019; 226: 55-61.

  5. 5.

    Jum'ah A A, Creanor S, Wilson N H F, Burke F J T, Brunton P A. Dental practice in the UK in 2015/2016. Part 3: aspects of indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics. Br Dent J 2019; In press.

  6. 6.

    Brunton P A, Burke, F J T, Wilson N H F, Creanor S. Dental practice in the UK in 2015. Part 2: aspects of indirect restoration and prosthodontics. Br Dent J 2019; In press.

  7. 7.

    Wilson N H F, Christensen G J, Cheung S W, Burke F J T, Brunton P A. Contemporary dental practice in the UK: aspects of direct restorations, endodontics and bleaching. Br Dent J 2004; 197: 753-756.

  8. 8.

    Brunton P A, Christensen G J, Cheung S W, Burke F J T, Wilson N H F. Contemporary dental practice in the UK: indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics. Br Dent J 2005; 198: 99-130.

  9. 9.

    Brunton P A, Burke F J T, Sharif M O et al. Contemporary dental practice in the UK in 2008: aspects of direct restorations, endodontics and bleaching. Br Dent J 2011; 212: 63-67.

  10. 10.

    Brunton P A, Sharif M O, Creanor S, Burke F J T, Wilson N H F. Contemporary dental practice in the UK in 2008: indirect restorations and prosthodontics. Br Dent J 2012; 212: 115-129.

  11. 11.

    Tan R T, Burke F J T. Response rates to questionnaires mailed to dentists: A review of 77 publications. Int Dent J 1997; 47: 349-354.

  12. 12.

    Batchelor P. Registration and retention of dentists on the General Dental Council register between 2006 and 2016. Br Dent J 2018; 224: 105-109.

  13. 13.

    Public Health England. Delivering better oral health: an evidence-based toolkit for prevention. 3rd ed. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605266/Delivering_better_oral_health.pdf (accessed January 2019).

  14. 14.

    Pogrel M A, Schmidt B L, Sambarjon V, Jordan R C C. Lingual nerve damage due to inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 195-199.

  15. 15.

    Haas D A, Lennon D. A 21 year retrospective study of reports of paraesthesia following local anaesthesia administration. J Can Dent Assoc1995; 61: 319-320, 323-326, 329-330.

  16. 16.

    Watson T F, Atmeh A R, Sajini S, Cook R J, Festy F. Present and future of glass ionomer and calcium silicate cements in dentistry: biophotonics-based interfacial analysis in health and disease. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 50-61.

  17. 17.

    Burke F J T. Technique tips: 'a get out of jail material'. Dent Update 2012; 38: 300.

  18. 18.

    Blum, I.R. & Wilson, N.H.F. An end to linings under posterior composites. J Am Dent Assoc, 2018; 149: 209-213.

  19. 19.

    Warreth A, Boggs S, Ibieyou N, El-Helali R, Hwang S. Peri implant diseases: an overview. Dent Update 2015; 42: 166-168, 171-174, 177-180.

  20. 20.

    Lindhe J, Pacey L. 'There is an overuse of implants in the world and underuse of teeth as targets for treatment'. Br Dent J 2014; 217: 396-397.

  21. 21.

    Eliyas S, Briggs P, Gallagher J E. The options for a tooth that requires root canal treatment. Dent Update 2018; 45: 182-195.

  22. 22.

    Price R B, Felix C M, Whelan J M. Factors affecting the energy delivered to simulated class I and Class V preparations. J Can Dent Assoc 2010; 76: a94.

  23. 23.

    Opdam N J, Bronkhorst E M, Loomans B A, Huysmanns M C. 12-year survival of composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 1063-1067.

  24. 24.

    Laske M, Opdam N J M, Bronkhorst E M, Braspenning J C, Huysmanns M C. Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice based research network. J Dent 2016; 46: 12-17.

  25. 25.

    Palotie U, Eronen A K, Vehkalahti K, Vehkalahti M M. Longedvity of 2and 3surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25to 30-year old attending public dental service: a 13-year observation. J Dent 2017; 62: 13-17.

  26. 26.

    Burke F J T, Lawson A, Green D J B, MacKenzie L. What's new in dentine bonding? Universal adhesives. Dent Update 2017; 44: 328-330, 332, 335-338, 340.

  27. 27.

    Bonsor S J. Are dentine pins obsolete? Dent Update 2013; 40: 253-254, 256-258.

  28. 28.

    Innes N P, Stirrups D R, Evans D J, Hall N, Leggate M. A novel technique using preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice - a retrospective analysis. Br Dent J 2006; 200: 451-454.

  29. 29.

    Innes N P T, Ricketts D, Chong L, Keightley A J, Lamont T, Santamaria R M. Preformed crowns for managing decayed primary molar teeth in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 12: CD005512. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub3.

  30. 30.

    Pameijer C H, Jefferies S R. Retentive properties and film thickness of 18 luting agents and systems. Gen Dent 1996; 44: 524-530.

  31. 31.

    Zidan O, Ferguson G C. The retention of complete crowns prepared with three different tapers and luted with four different cements. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 565-571.

  32. 32.

    Heintze S D. Crown pull off test (crown retention test) to evaluate the bonding effectiveness of luting agents. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 193-206.

  33. 33.

    Burke F J T, Crisp R J, Richter B. A practice-based evaluation of the handling of a new self-adhesive universal resin luting material. Int Dent J 2006; 56: 142-146.

  34. 34.

    Bateman G, Ricketts D N, Saunders W P. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003; 195: 43-48.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. J. Trevor Burke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burke, F., Wilson, N., Brunton, P. et al. Dental practice in the UK in 2015/2016. Part 4: changes since 2002?. Br Dent J 226, 279–285 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0009-0

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links