Attitudes of Greek dentists towards repair of conservative restorations. An online survey

Repair versus Replacement of Defective Direct Dental Restorations: A Multinational Cross-sectional Study with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

When dental practitioners encounter a defective restoration, they are faced with a crucial decision whether to repair or replace it. This study aims to explore international preferences for repair procedures and the clinical steps taken during the repair process.

METHOD

An 11-question survey was distributed to dentists across 21 countries via different platforms. The survey comprised two sections: the first included five questions aimed at gathering demographic information, while the second consisted of six questions focusing on participants' practices related to the repair of composite or amalgam restorations A meta-analysis was employed to ascertain the pooled odds ratio of repairing versus replacement. The statistical analysis was carried out using the RevMan 5.3 program and forest plots were generated using the same program to visualize the results.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 3680 dental practitioners. The results indicated a strong tendency to repair defective composite restorations (OR: 14.23; 95% CI: 7.40, 27.35, p<0.001). In terms of amalgam, there was a significant tendency to replace the restorations (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.30, p<0.001). When repairing restorations, the most common protocols were etching with orthophosphoric acid and creating an enamel bevel, regardless of the restorative material used.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that there exists a knowledge gap among dental practitioners regarding restoration repair. It is imperative that dental practitioners receive proper education and training on restoration repair, to ensure the usage of adequate protocols and restoration survival.

EVIDENCE-PRACTICE GAP IN TREATMENT DECISIONS ABOUT DEFECTIVE COMPOSITE AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS AMONG BRAZILIAN DENTISTS

Better understanding of dentists' decision-making about defective restorations is needed to close the evidence-practice gap (EPG). Aim: this study aimed to quantify the EPG about defective restorations and identify dentist factors associated with this EPG. Methods: 216 dentists from São Paulo State, Brazil, completed a questionnaire about three clinical case scenarios involving defective composite restorations with cementum-dentin margins (case 1) and enamel margins (case 2), and an amalgam (case 3) restoration. Dentists were asked what treatment, if any, they would recommend, including preventive treatment, polishing, re-surfacing, or repairing the restoration, or replacing the entire restoration. Replacing the entire restoration in any of these three scenarios was classified as inconsistent with the evidence, comprising an EPG. Bivariate analyses using Chi-square, ANOVA, or multiple comparison tests were performed (p<.05). Results: for defective composite restorations, 49% and 55% of dentists chose to replace the entire restoration for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of dentists chose to replace the entire amalgam restoration. Dentists were significantly more likely to choose to replace the defective amalgam restoration than the composite restoration with a defect at the cementum-dentin margins or the enamel margins (both at p < .001). Female dentists were more likely to choose a conservative treatment than male dentists for cases 1 (p=.034) and 2 (p=.009). Dentists with a higher percentage of patients interested in individualized caries prevention were also more conservative in case 1 (p=.045). Conclusion: a substantial EPG regarding treatment decisions for defective restorations exists, especially for composite restorations. This study adds to the international evidence that an EPG exists in this clinical area and that global strategies need to be developed to close the gap.

Awareness of Students and Dentists on Sustainability Issues, Safety of Use and Disposal of Dental Amalgam

Among the pillars of sustainability in health care units is environmental protection. Although an EU-wide dental amalgam phase-out legislation exists, quantities of this material are still to be found in the market, dental offices or in the mouths of patients. The purpose of this study is to record the views of dentists and dental students in Greece regarding the use and safety of dental amalgam for people and the environment as well as their attitudes towards its restriction and disposal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two different questionnaires, through Google forms, were filled by each group. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the variables. The chi-square test or the chi-square test with Yates correction was used to examine potential differences per group (p-value = 0.05). Overall, 564 people participated in this study; 462 (81.9%) dentists (N1) and 102 (18.1%) dental students (N2).

RESULTS

Both groups agreed that they no longer use dental amalgam often. Dentists (39.8%) and students (36.4%) consider amalgam to have a moderate burden on the environment. This answer differed significantly per year of profession and year of undergraduate studies, respectively, with dentists from 6-25 years in the profession and 4th-year students, being the least aware on the environmental footprint of dental amalgam. Further, professionals (70%) and students (60%) believe that dental amalgam has a hazardous impact on patient's health, at all or to a small extent. For staff health, dentists reported at a moderate degree dangerous impact (32.9%) while students (36.4%), respectively. The impact on patients and staff health, were found to differ significantly per region of practicing dentistry for both groups. Finally, there were suggestions made from both groups about the necessity of information sharing on amalgam and mercury safety and the impact on the environment at the level of professional organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Students, younger dentists and those living in non-urban regions seem to be more sensitive to the environmental impact of amalgam use, disposal, and health of people. Environmental issues should be addressed thoroughly by professional organizations, enhancing relevant activities for all people involved.

How French dentists manage defective restorations: Evidence from ReCOL the French dental practice-based research network--A survey study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe the knowledge, opinions and practices about the defective restoration (DR) management of French general dental practitioners (GDPs).

METHODS

A cross-sectional, online survey-based study was carried out amongst 378 GDPs - members of the dental practice-based research network in France (ReCOL). Bivariate comparisons were made using Fisher's exact test to assess the association of the respondent characteristics (age, gender…) with the decision to repair DRs, and responses to clinical cases.

RESULTS

The response rate was 82.9%. 50.4% of the respondents declared they at least sometimes consider DRs repair in their clinical practice instead of DRs total replacement. For the 89.8% who at least rarely repaired DRs, the main characteristic determining the therapeutic strategy was the defect size (71%, mainly inclined to repair small defects), followed by the defect type (marginal defect or crack for more than 60% of the respondents) and the material of initial restoration (composite for 63.5%). When shown clinical photographs illustrating DRs, most of respondents proposed a replacement with inlay/onlay or crown.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that a significant proportion of French GDPs do not make sufficient use of DR repair on a routine basis. A lack of knowledge of the concept seems to explain at least part of this situation. Collective and individual efforts from the profession are still needed to promote DR repair and therefore more often apply MinimalIntervention Dentistry.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This survey shows that MID is not yet sufficiently used in routine practice in France regarding DR management. Further efforts (continuing education toward MID, public funding revaluation for MID strategies…) are needed to help GDPs to implement MID into everyday practice.

Repair versus replacement of defective direct restorations: A cross-sectional study among US dentists

BACKGROUND

Repair increases the longevity of restorations and is well-accepted by patients. In this study, the authors assessed the acceptance of dental restoration repair by dentists and determined the main variables of repair versus replacement of defective restorations.

METHODS

A 15-item questionnaire was developed and distributed electronically to the American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators panel members (n = 785) during a 2-week period in 2019. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 387 respondents, 83.7% stated that they repair defective restorations, and 16% stated that they always replace them. Reasons to forego a restoration repair among dentists who perform repairs included defect size and carious lesion extension (42%) and negative personal experience or lack of success (37.9%). However, the latter was considerably higher for dentists who do not perform repairs (60.7%). The most commonly cited patient-related reason and tooth condition to repair restorations were limited patient finances (67%) and noncarious marginal defects (86%), respectively. Neither sex nor age group was significantly associated with the practice of restoration repair (P = .925 and P = .369, respectively). However, sole proprietors were more likely to perform repairs than those in an employee, associate, or contractor practice setting (P = .008). The most significant reason to forego restoration was negative experience or lack of success (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Restoration repair is considered a treatment option for managing defective restorations. Negative personal experience or lack of success and practice setting influenced the dentists' decision to repair or replace a defective restoration.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Understanding dentists' clinical challenges and practice environment is necessary when advocating for this approach.

Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations

Purpose of Review

Defective dental restorations are amongst the most common encounters in general dental practice. Replacement of defective restorations is often costly and commonly results in the sacrifice of sound tooth structure, thereby compromising the vitality of the dental pulp, potentially resulting in the acceleration of the restoration cycle and premature loss of the restored tooth. With advances in adhesive dentistry, ‘reparative dentistry’ is becoming an important area of minimally invasive dentistry. This article highlights the detrimental biological effects of restoration replacement and provides an overview of current knowledge and understanding of restoration repair as a safe and effective alternative approach to replacement.

Recent Findings

The literature reviewed showed that a growing body of evidence from clinical studies indicates that repaired restorations have similar survival outcomes in patients with low and medium caries risk compared to replaced restorations and are clinically acceptable over a 12-year follow-up of clinical service. Teeth with repaired restorations are less likely to require aggressive interventions such as endodontic treatment or extraction compared to those with replaced restorations.

Summary

Repair options should be carried out wherever possible as minimally interventional procedures in order to increase the longevity of the remaining part of the restoration and the restored tooth unit. Restoration replacement should be considered as the last resort when there are no other viable alternatives.

Understanding the management and teaching of dental restoration repair: Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

OBJECTIVES

Repair instead of complete replacement is recommended to manage partially defective restorations. It is unclear if and why such treatment is taught at dental schools or practiced by dentists. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators for repairs using a systematic review and meta- and qualitative analysis.

SOURCES

Electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO) were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Quantitative studies reporting on the proportion of (1) dentists stating to perform repairs, (2) dental schools teaching repairs, (3) failed restorations having been repaired were included. We also included qualitative studies on barriers/facilitators for repairs. Random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression and a thematic analysis using the theoretical domains framework were conducted.

DATA

401 articles were assessed and 29, mainly quantitative, studies included. 7228 dentists and 276 dental schools had been surveyed, and treatment data of 30,172 restorations evaluated. The mean (95% CI) proportion of dentists stating to perform repairs was 71.5% (49.7-86.4%). 83.3% (73.6-90.0%) of dental schools taught repairs. 31.3% (26.3-36.7%) of failed restorations had been repaired. More recent studies reported significantly more dentists to repair restorations (p=0.004). Employment in public health practices and being the dentist who placed the original restoration were facilitators for repairs. Amalgam restorations were repaired less often, and financial aspects and regulations came as barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

While most dentists state to perform repairs and the vast majority of dental schools teach repairs, the proportion of truly repaired restorations was low. A number of interventions to implement repair in dental practice can be deduced from our findings.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Partially defective restorations are common in dental practice. While repairs are taught and dentists are aware of the recommendation towards repairs, the actually performed proportion of repairs seems low.