Acta Scientific Dental Sciences

Research Article Volume 9 Issue 1

Repair Versus Replacement of Defective Direct Restorations -A Cross-Sectional Study among Dentists in Central India

Meshram Rishikesh K1*, Sathawane Nikhil2 and Kelapure Manjiri3

1 Professor, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India 2Associate Professor, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India 3Student, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

*Corresponding Author: Meshram Rishikesh K, Professor, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.

Received: December 10, 2024; Published: December 31, 2024

Abstract

Background: This study focuses on the preferences of Indian dentists regarding the management of defective composite restora tions, specifically examining the choice between repair and replacement.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire administered to active 115 dentists practicing in central India. This survey aimed to collect data on their clinical experiences, viewpoints, and protocols for treating damaged restora tions.

Results: The findings indicate a diverse range of practices influenced by factors such as patient demographics, material concerns, and the severity of damage. This trend may be attributed to cost considerations, patient preferences, and a growing awareness of the environmental impact of dental materials.

Conclusion: The study highlights the challenges dentists face in implementing repair techniques, including a lack of training and material availability. It underscores the need for enhanced educational initiatives and resources to promote evidence-based practices in restorative dentistry.

Practical Implications: The findings emphasize the importance of context-specific guidelines that consider both clinical efficacy and patient-centered care, contributing valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on restorative strategies.

Keywords: Composite Restorations; Repair Versus Replacement; Dentist Preferences; Restorative Dentistry; India; Cross-Sectional Study

References

  1. Burke FJT., et al. “Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. services in England and Wales (part 2): variation by patients’ characteristics”. Journal of Dentistry 33 (2005): 817-826.
  2. Lucarotti PSK., et al. “Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and wales (part 3): variation by dentist factors”. Journal of Dentistry 33 (2005): 827-835.
  3. Lucarotti PSK., et al. “Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (part 1): variation by type of restoration and re-invention”. Journal of Dentistry 33 (2005): 805-815.
  4. Hickel R and Manhart J. “Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure”. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 3 (2001): 45-64.
  5. Pink FE., et al. “Decisions of practitioners regarding placement of amalgam and composite restorations in general practice settings”. Operative Dentistry 19 (1994): 127-132.
  6. Friedl KH., et al. “Placement and replacement of amalgam in Germany”. Operative Dentistry 20 (1995): 34-33.
  7. Deligeorgi V., et al. “An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations”. Prime Dental Care 8 (2001): 5-11.
  8. Mjör IA., et al. “Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland”. Operative Dentistry 27 (2002): 117-123.
  9. Wafaa Kattan., et al. “Repair versus replacement of defective direct restorations A cross-sectional study among US dentists”. The Journal of the American Dental Association 11 (2021): 927-935.
  10. Mjör IA. “The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice”. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1 (1997): 58-63.
  11. Mjör IA., et al. “Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice”. International Dental Journal 6 (2000): 361-366.
  12. Moncado G., et al. “Sealing, refurbishment and repair of class I and class II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial”. JADA4 (1990): 425-432.
  13. Moncado G., et al. “Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial”. Operative Dentistry 3 (2008): 258-264.
  14. Mjör IA. “Repair versus replacement of failed resto rations”. International Dental Journal 5 (1993): 466-472.
  15. Ettinger RL. “Restoring the ageing dentition: repair or replacement?” International Dental Journal 5 (1990): 275-282.
  16. Gordan VV., et al. “Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations”. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 3 (2006): 144 153.
  17. Fernández EM., et al. “Survival rate of sealed, refurbished and repaired defective restorations: 4-year follow-up”. Brazilian Dental Journal 2 (2011): 134-139.
  18. Gordan VV., et al. “Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group. Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network”. JADA 6 (2012): 593-601.
  19. Gordan VV., et al. “National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN”. Journal of Dentistry12 (2014): 1528-1534.
  20. Gordan VV., et al. “DPBRN Collaborative Group. How dentists diagnose and treat defective restorations: evidence from the dental practice based research network”. Operative Dentistry 6 (2009): 664-673.
  21. Heaven TJ., et al. “National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. Agreement among dentists’ restorative treatment planning thresholds for primary occlusal caries, primary proximal caries, and existing restorations: findings from The National Dental Practice Based Research Network”. Journal of Dentistry 8 (2013): 718-725.
  22. Tyas MJ., et al. “Minimal intervention dentistry: a review, FDI Commission Project 1-97”. International Dental Journal 1 (2000): 1-12.
  23. da Costa JB., et al. “Council on Scientific Affairs. Defective restoration repair or replacement”. JADA 4 (2021): 329-330.
  24. Kanzow P., et al. “Understanding the management and teaching of dental restoration repair: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys”. Journal of Dentistry 69 (2018): 1-21.
  25. Gordan VV., et al. “Teaching students the repair of resin-based composite restorations: a survey of North American dental schools”. JADA3 (2003): 317-323.
  26. Lynch CD., et al. “Repair or replacement of defective direct resin-based composite restorations: contemporary teaching in US and Canadian dental schools”. JADA2 (2012): 157-163.
  27. Kanzow P., et al. “Attitudes, practice, and experience of German dentists regarding repair restorations”. Clinical Oral Investigations 4 (2017): 1087-1093.
  28. Maria A., et al. “Attitudes of Greek dentists towards repair of conservative restorations: an online survey”. International Dental Journal 6 (2017): 351-359.
  29. Kanzow P and Wiegand A. “Teaching of composite restoration repair: trends and quality of teaching over the past 20 years”. Journal of Dentistry 95 (2020): 103303.
  30. Hickel R., et al. “Repair of restorations: criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations”. Dental Materials 1 (2013): 28-50.
  31. Moncado G., et al. “Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations”. Operative Dentistry 1 (2015): 34-43.
  32. Fernández E., et al. “Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial”. Journal of Dentistry 2 (2015): 279-286.
  33. , et al. “Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair”. Journal of Dentistry 86 (2019): 1-16.
  34. Blum IR., et al. “Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite”. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry 6 (2014): 81-87.
  35. Opdam NJM., et al. “Longevity of repaired restorations: a practice-based study”. Journal of Dentistry 10 (2012):829 835.
  36. Hatipoglu Ö and Arıcıoglu B. “Repair versus replacement: a questionnaire examining the repair preferences of Turkish dentists in dental restorations”. Swiss Dental Journal 5 (2019): 1-6.
  37. Lo Sasso AT., et al. “Practice settings and dentists’ job satisfaction”. JADA 8 (2015): 600-609.

Citation

Citation: Meshram Rishikesh K., et al. “Repair Versus Replacement of Defective Direct Restorations -A Cross-Sectional Study among Dentists in Central India" Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 9.1 (2025): 76-80.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Meshram Rishikesh K., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.278

Indexed In





News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Last Date to Submit Articles
    Journal accepting all the types of Articles for upcoing issue by on/before July 30, 2025
  • Issue of Publication Certificate
    Publication Certificate will be issued to the author after Online publication of an Article
  • Best Article
    One Article will be selected as Best Article from all the Articles of the corresponding Issue, once the issue released, and honored with A Best Article Certificate

Contact US









ff

© 2024 Acta Scientific, All rights reserved.