Repair Of Resin Composite Restorations Research Articles

Repair of defective resin composite restorations in primary teeth: current trends in Brazilian undergraduate Dental programs

Este estudo investigou o ensino do reparo de restauração direta de resina composta em dentes decíduos nos cursos de graduação em Odontologia no Brasil. Um questionário referente a este tópico foi desenvolvido e enviado por e-mail para 205 cursos de Odontologia entre maio e setembro de 2019. Os dados obtidos foram analisados descritivamente. A taxa de resposta foi de 43,4% e dos cursos respondentes, 82% incluíram esse tópico em seu currículo. As duas razões mais comumente relatadas para o ensino do reparo de restaurações de resina composta foram preservação da estrutura dentária (95,9%) e redução do risco de complicações pulpares (71,2%). No que diz respeito ao protocolo para reparo, poucos instituições (24,7%) ensinaram o desgaste mecânico da porção da resina a ser reparada com pontas diamantadas. Por outro lado, o condicionamento com ácido fosfórico da superfície preparada foi recomendado por 87,7% das instituições e 76,7% indicaram aplicação de adesivo na superfície preparada. O material mais comumente ensinado para reparo foi resina composta convencional. O ensino do reparo de restaurações de resina composta com falhas foi estabelecido dentro do currículo dos cursos de graduação em Odontologia no Brasil. No entanto, não há consenso sobre o protocolo clínico para reparo.

Contemporary teaching of restoration repair at dental schools in Germany – Close to universality and consistency

ObjectivesTo identify potential changes in various aspects of teaching and to ascertain whether previously found inconsistencies in the teaching of criteria, indications and operative techniques for the repair of defective composite restorations at German dental schools have been resolved. MethodsA validated questionnaire was used to gain the information sought. It was sent to all dental schools in Germany (n = 30). Whenever possible, data were compared to previous studies conducted in 2000 and 2009. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact tests (p < 0.05). ResultsTwenty-nine schools responded to the survey – a response rate of 97%. All respondents indicated positive experiences with the repair of restorations. The teaching of repairs in 2018 (90%) was found to be comparable to the findings from the 2009 survey (88%, p = 1.000), but significantly increased since the 2000 survey (50%, p = 0.006). Main reasons reported for teaching repairs are tooth substance preservation (97%) and reduction of pulpal damage (79%). Main clinical indications are marginal defects and secondary caries. When performing repairs, almost all dental schools were found to teach both mechanical and adhesive substrate surface conditioning. Marked variation was observed in the method of mechanical surface treatment, with air abrasion having gained widespread popularity. The average expected longevity of repairs was 7.4 ± 3.0 years. ConclusionsThe teaching of the repair of resin composite restorations is widespread in dental schools in Germany. Aspects of this teaching were found to be more consistent between dental schools than in previous surveys, albeit variation in operative techniques still exists. Clinical significanceGraduates from dental schools in Germany may be found to be well equipped with the knowledge and skills to perform repairs of defective resin based composite restorations in clinical practice.

8 コンポジットレジンの補修修復に関する研究(第501回 大阪歯科学会例会)

8 コンポジットレジンの補修修復に関する研究(第501回 大阪歯科学会例会)

Defective composite restorations--repair or replace?

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge, Web of Science and Opengrey databases were searched. In addition researchers and experts in the field were contacted to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication. Randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations in adults with a defective molar restoration in a permanent molar or premolar teeth were to be considered. Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed for data synthesis. The search strategy retrieved 298 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially relevant studies were retrieved, but none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. Therefore there is a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement, and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, time and costs.

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite

Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth-coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any filling material composites have a finite life-span. Traditionally, replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective composite restorations, however, repairing composites offers an alternative more conservative approach to the tooth structure where restorations are partly still serviceable. Repairing the restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. To evaluate the effects of replacing (with resin composite) versus repair (with resin composite) in the management of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth. For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 24 July 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 24 July 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 24 July 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 24 July 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 24 July 2013); and OpenGrey (to 24 July 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations in adults with a defective molar restoration in a permanent molar or premolar teeth. Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. The search strategy retrieved 298 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially relevant studies were retrieved but none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, time and costs.

Defective resin composite - repair or replace?

Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Science, ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings, BIOSIS, OpenSIGLE. Reference lists of all eligible trials and review articles and their reference lists were searched. Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial, involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently by two review authors for relevance . Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. Data synthesis was to follow Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines. 279 potentially eligible studies were identified. Only four studies were analysed further but none of these met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review. There are no published randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled clinical trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, distress and anxiety, time and costs.