Perception regarding the management of defective composite restorations in dental colleges of Pakistan: Repair versus Replacement; a Cross-sectional study
Main Article Content
Keywords
Direct composite restoration, repair, replacement, minimal intervention dentistry, teaching practices
Abstract
Minimal intervention dentistry (MID) has shifted the trend towards repairing rather than replacing direct composite restorations in case already existing restoration becomes defective. Repairing these restorations has many benefits, such as preservation of tooth structure, improved prognosis, cost-effectiveness, and reduced need for local anesthesia. However, the decision-making process for managing local defects in composite restorations can be challenging for dentists. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge and practices for managing defective direct composite restorations in dental colleges in Pakistan.
A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 297 participants, which included 3rd and 4th-year dental students, house officers, and operative dentistry residents. A previously validated survey instrument was used for data collection via Google Forms.SPSS was used for the data analysis.
The results showed that most participants were taught about composite repair during their undergraduate studies. However, most participants had not repaired and replaced a defective composite restoration. The study also found a significant association between the participants' level and their preference for restoration repair vs replacement. Additionally, the study revealed that the majority of participants preferred flowable composites as their repair material, and there was a significant association between the participants' academic year and their preferred repair material for defective restoration. The most commonly used technique for finishing was with diamond finishing instruments.
The study suggests that there is a need for scientific societies and workgroups in restorative and operative dentistry to produce guidelines on key treatment steps for repairing defective composite restorations.
References
2. Kuper N, Opdam N, Bronkhorst E, Huysmans M. The influence of approximal restoration extension on the development of secondary caries. Journal of dentistry. 2012;40(3):241-7.
3. Murdoch-Kinch CA, McLEAN ME. Minimally invasive dentistry. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2003;134(1):87-95.
4. Valente LL, Sarkis-Onofre R, Goncalves AP, Fernandez E, Loomans B, Moraes RR. Repair bond strength of dental composites: systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 2016;69:15-26.
5. Ericson D, Kidd E, McComb D, Mjör I, Noack MJ. Minimally invasive dentistry—concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2003;1(1):59-72.
6. Green D, Mackenzie L, Banerjee A. Minimally invasive long-term management of direct restorations: the ‘5 Rs’. Dental update. 2015;42(5):413-26.
7. Ionescu AC, Brambilla E. New generation restorative dental biomaterials that modulate biofilm formation. Biomaterials and novel technologies for healthcare: CNR edizioni; 2018. p. 149-50.
8. Sharif MO, Catleugh M, Merry A, Tickle M, Dunne SM, Brunton P, et al. Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014(2).
9. Kanzow P, Wiegand A. Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations. Dental Materials. 2020;36(1):108-18.
10. Castillo-de Oyagüe R, Lynch C, McConnell R, Wilson N. Teaching the placement of posterior resin-based composite restorations in Spanish dental schools. Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. 2012;17(4):e661.
11. Ottenga ME, Mjör I. Amalgam and composite posterior restorations: curriculum versus practice in operative dentistry at a US dental school. Operative Dentistry. 2007;32(5):524-8.
12. Alqarni M, Khalil SN, Obied ESS, Alshehri MM, Assiri MAA, Mualwi SAM, et al. Knowledge about composite restorations repair vs replacement-a survey among a subpopulation of saudi dental students. Brazilian Dental Science. 2021;24(1):8 p- p.
13. Lynch CD, Hayashi M, Seow L, Blum I, Wilson N. The management of defective resin composite restorations: current trends in dental school teaching in Japan. Operative Dentistry. 2013;38(5):497-504.
14. Lynch CD, Blum IR, Frazier KB, Haisch LD, Wilson NH. Repair or replacement of defective direct resin-based composite restorations: contemporary teaching in US and Canadian dental schools. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2012;143(2):157-63.
15. Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson N. Teaching of direct composite restoration repair in undergraduate dental schools in the United Kingdom and Ireland. European Journal of Dental Education. 2012;16(1):e53-e8.
16. Blum IR, Jagger DC, Wilson NH. Defective dental restorations: to repair or not to repair? Part 1: direct composite restorations. Dental update. 2011;38(2):78-84.
17. Fareed MA, Bashir AF, Yousaf U, Baig QA, Jatala UW, Zafar MS. Trends in resin composite restoration repair teaching in dental colleges in Pakistan. European Journal of General Dentistry. 2021;10(01):014-8.
18. Blum I, Schriever A, Heidemann D, Mjör I, Wilson N. The repair of direct composite restorations: an international survey of the teaching of operative techniques and materials. European Journal of Dental Education. 2003;7(1):41-8.
19. Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, van Dijken JW, Funegård U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden. Journal of dentistry. 2009;37(9):673-8.
20. Bonstein T, Garlapo D, Donarummo Jr J, Bush PJ. Evaluation of varied repair protocols applied to aged composite resin. J Adhes Dent. 2005;7(1):41-9.
21. Tezvergil A, Lassila L, Yli‐Urpo A, Vallittu P. Repair bond strength of restorative resin composite applied to fiber‐reinforced composite substrate. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2004;62(1):51-60. 22. Gordan VV, Shen C, Riley III J, Mjör IA. Two‐year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2006;18(3):144-53.
23. Gordan VV, Garvan CW, Blaser PK, Mondragon E, Mjör IA. A long-term evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of resin-based composite restorations: results of a seven-year study. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2009;140(12):1476-84.
24. Leal SC, Dame-Teixeira N, BARBOSA CdB, Kominami PAA, Raposo F, Nakagawa EMT, et al. Minimum intervention oral care: defining the future of caries management. Brazilian Oral Research. 2022;36.
25. Kanzow P, Wiegand A, Wilson NH, Lynch CD, Blum IR. Contemporary teaching of restoration repair at dental schools in Germany–Close to universality and consistency. Journal of dentistry. 2018;75:121-4.
26. Fernández E, Martín J, Vildósola P, Junior OO, Gordan V, Mjor I, et al. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. Journal of dentistry. 2015;43(2):279-86.
27. Tredwin CJ, Stokes A, Moles DR. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites. Oper Dent. 2005;30(1):32-8.
28. Elsharkasi MM. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Resin Composite Repair among Libyan Practitioners. The Scientific Journal of University of Benghazi. 2021;34(1):6-.
29. Fayyaz A, Fareed MA, Ehsan S, Baig QA, Noor NA. Repair or replacement of defective direct composite restorations: a survey of dentists. J Pak Dent Assoc. 2015;24(1):17-21.
30. Gordan VV, Riley III JL, Worley DC, Gilbert GH, Group DC. Restorative material and other tooth-specific variables associated with the decision to repair or replace defective restorations: findings from The Dental PBRN. Journal of Dentistry. 2012;40(5):397-405.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.