LAUSR

compared to recently qualified dentists. This finding could either be due to the lack of experience of recently qualified dentists or it may be a reflection of contemporary dental training, which focuses on being as conservative and minimally invasive as possible. In managing proximal cavities, most participants chose composite resin as their preferred material. Yet, despite this material choice, the majority of them still opted for a traditional class II cavity design instead of the more conservative, biologically-driven, saucer-shaped preparation. Dentists who had attended caries management courses were found to be more likely to opt for the latter. In contrast, recently qualified dentists were more likely to opt for the less conservative traditional class II cavity design, which seems contradictory since they are more likely to be trained in minimally invasive dentistry. This might be due to Black’s cavity design principles still being taught in some dental schools despite being outdated, leading to confusion among young dentists. Nevertheless, the authors acknowledged the limited generalisability of this study, mainly because it only included dentists working in training practices in London and relied on self-reporting. Perhaps the future development of an evidence-based caries management guideline might be able to help improve standardisation among dental practitioners of all levels of experience. By Jed Y. J. Lee DCT in Paediatric Dentistry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust Differences in caries management strategies among dentists