Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam

Knowledge and Attitude of Dentists and Patients Toward Use and Health Safety of Dental Amalgam in Saudi Arabia

Objective  The aim of this study was to assess: (1) the perceptions of dentists in Saudi Arabia concerning the amalgam controversy, (2) their attitude toward the ethical responsibility of patient information, and (3) patients’ knowledge and attitude toward the use of dental amalgam.

Materials and Methods  A total of 1,139 dentists were sampled on convenience by electronic survey. The questionnaire contained questions about the safety of dental amalgam, use of amalgam, case selection, alternate materials, and informing their patients about risks of amalgam. Also, 425 patients were sampled on convenience and information collected on their knowledge about amalgam and its acceptance in their oral cavities.

Results  A total of 201 dentists and 425 patients participated in the study. A total of 60% of dentists and specialists declared it safe. A total of 32.4% (31) of general dental practitioners and 41% (43) specialists considered it a moral obligation to inform patients about the potential health risks associated with amalgam. Mercury toxicity was identified as the most common health hazard. About 57.3% dentists and 36.2% specialists opted for superior longevity as the principle advantage. Majority of patients (52.2%) in Saudi Arabia had no knowledge about dental amalgam. While 23.1% (98) had concern about poor color, 8.7% (30) knew it contained silver while only 7.8% (27) patients were aware of its mercury content.

Conclusion  Majority of dentists in Saudi Arabia found it safe to use amalgam while the patients had little knowledge about the possible issues with amalgam. It is recommended to improve public awareness about impact of mercury containing products on the environment.

Decision criteria for replacement of fillings: a retrospective study

The exchange of restorations goes along with the loss of healthy tooth structure. Therefore, it is important to investigate helpful decision criteria for the replacement of fillings. Five hundred forty-four filling replacements were evaluated retrospectively. Thereby, different clinical parameters were correlated with the clinical finding of caries directly after removal of the existing filling. The parameters checked for correlations were amalgam and composite, age, and size of the filling, morphology, condition of the filling, type of caries, oral hygiene, anamnesis of the respective tooth, and the decisive factor to replace the restoration. Statistical evaluation was performed by chi-squared-test (P < 0,05) and by regression analysis (Power: 80%). A percentage of 69.8% of all cavities showed softened dentin if exploring with the probe after the removal of the restoration, 7.6% were stainable with caries detector, and 22.6% of the cavities were caries free. Significant indicators for a carious lesion were high age of restoration, imperfections at the margin of the filling, a positive pain sensation in correlation with composite fillings, and multi-surface amalgam fillings. On suspicion of caries, the following decision criteria should encourage the dentist to remove a filling: High age of the filling, imperfections at the margin of the filling, especially fillings with marginal cracks, visible secondary caries, a positive pain sensation in composite filled teeth, and multi-surface amalgam fillings. Filling removals only performed due to the patient's desire for removal should be critically regarded, as most of these fillings are caries free.

Criteria for the Replacement of Restorations: Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section

The replacement of a restoration is one of the most common procedures in dentistry. However, the criteria for such intervention, excluding catastrophic failure and persistent discomfort and pain, continue to be the subject of considerable debate. The decision-making process remains subjective on the part of the treating clinician, while the evidence base for refurbishment and repair rather than replacement for the management of defective and failing restorations continues to grow and strengthen. This article, prepared as an Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section consensus publication, reviews existing criteria for the replacement of restorations and encourages practitioners to shift, if not already doing so, to considering the replacement of a restoration as a last resort rather than as a prudent action to be taken if in any doubt about clinical acceptability. Further research in the area, spanning the risk assessment of defective and failing restorations and new diagnostic tools and processes, together with work to enhance the evidence base of restoration repair vs replacement, would be of immense value.

Defective amalgam restorations--repair or replace?

DATA SOURCES

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.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of amalgam restorations in adults with a defective molar restoration in permanent molar or premolar teeth were to be considered.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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.

RESULTS

The search strategy retrieved 201 potentially eligible studies after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of the relevant studies were retrieved but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review.

CONCLUSIONS

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, distress and anxiety, time and costs.

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.