Teaching of composite restoration repair in Brazilian dental schools

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to investigate aspects of the teaching of restoration repair as a minimally invasive alternative to replacing defective direct composite restorations in undergraduate curricula teaching programs in Brazilian dental schools.

METHODS

A 14-item validated survey questionnaire was mailed to directors/coordinators of operative/restorative dentistry teachers of Brazilian Dental Schools. Data were collected on demographic characteristics of the teachers and institutions, together with questions on the teaching of the repair of defective resin-based composite restorations as part of the school curriculum; the rationale behind the teaching; the nature of the teaching (preclinical and/or clinical); how techniques were taught, indications for repair, operative techniques, materials used, patient acceptability and expected longevity of completed repairs.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-two (94%) directors/ coordinators of dental curricula in Brazil were contacted. One hundred and thirty-one directors/coordinators (59%) replied, providing the e-mail address from the teacher responsible for the operative/restorative dentistry program in their school. Of these, 104 responded to the questionnaire (79% response rate). Ninety-three (89%) of the participating schools reported teaching composite repairs as an alternative to replacing restorations. Of the theoretical content, 43% was taught at preclinical and clinical levels, whereas most practical experience (53%) was acquired at clinical levels. Eighty-eight schools (95%) reported tooth substance preservation being the main reason for teaching repair techniques. All schools that taught repairs reported high patient acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

The teaching of composite restoration repair as an alternative to restoration replacement is established in undergraduate programs in most of the Brazilian dental schools surveyed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The reasons for teaching restoration repair in Brazil were found to be quite unanimous among teachers, especially regarding the preservation of tooth structure. Variations were found in the clinical indications for repair, suggesting the need for further investigations. Monitoring repaired restorations should be encouraged and could contribute to future studies.

Long-term treatment costs and cost-effectiveness of restoration repair versus replacement

OBJECTIVES

When managing partially defective restorations, dentists can choose between repair and replacement. We aimed to assess the long-term treatment costs of repairs and replacements.

METHODS

Partially defective anterior and posterior composite restorations in permanent teeth had been repaired or replaced in a German university hospital and were retrospectively followed until censoring or one of the following events: (1) Extraction, (2) Major complications including placement of indirect restorations, endodontic treatments and extractions, or (3) Any complications including major complications and further direct restorations. Costs were estimated from a German mixed public-private-payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness differences were described using median-based incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER_MEDIAN). Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed modeling (GLM), Chi²-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 616 repairs in 468 patients (follow-up: 4.9 ± 4.1 years) and 264 replacements in 218 patients (follow-up: 4.8 ± 4.3) were included. While replacements were associated with higher initial treatment costs, median annualized treatment costs did not significantly differ between repair (47.58 Euro [IQR: 24.41-107.04]) and replacement (50.64 Euro [IQR: 26.30-118.78]; p > 0.05), but were higher for molars (75.53 Euro [IQR: 24.41-92.18]) than incisors (45.03 Euro [IQR: 28.19-168.50]; p = 0.011). The difference in the % of extractions, major and any complications were minimal between both groups. The mean ICER_MEDIAN of replacement vs. repair was -146.8 Euro/% when extractions were considered as outcomes. Regarding major and any complications, mean ICER_MEDIAN amounted to 67.6 Euro/% and 23.9 Euro/%, respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

Repairs and replacements of partially defective restorations showed similar long-term costs and cost-effectiveness.

Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair

OBJECTIVES

While repairs are increasingly recommended to manage partially defective restorations, performing the repair (including bonding to different substrates) can be challenging, and dentists should adhere to established repair protocols. We aimed to systematically assess the consistency and quality of repair protocols.

DATA

808 records were initially identified and 71 repair protocols based on 84 sources included. The number of published sources over time increased exponentially (p < 0.001). Recommended treatment steps varied widely. Some treatment steps were only recommended by a minority of protocols, while others were consistently recommended (e.g. surface roughening, hydrofluoric acid etching of silicate ceramics, application of an adhesive/bonding agent). The overall quality of included sources was moderate (mean ± SD 3.7 ± 0.9 out of 7 points).

SOURCES

Electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase) were searched, hand searches using Google and Google Scholar conducted, and the reference lists of included full texts screened and cross-referenced.

STUDY SELECTION

(Non-)systematic reviews, working instructions, and textbooks with protocols on direct composite repair restorations for partially defective (1) composite, (2) amalgam, (3) porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFMs) with exposed metal base, (4) ceramic/PFMs without exposed metal base, and (5) full metal restorations were included. Data synthesis was performed by tabulation of recommended treatment steps and descriptive statistics. The quality of included sources was assessed based on a checklist for guideline appraisal (MiChe).

CONCLUSIONS

The main treatment steps were consistently reported across repair protocols.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dentists may want to adopt widely recommended treatment steps when performing repairs of different restoration materials in their daily practice.

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.