EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTING APPROACH WITH PARTIAL REPLACEMENT (REPAIR) OF DEFECTIVE COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS: CLINICAL INDICATIONS, PROGNOSIS, RECOMMENDATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35220/2078-8916-2022-45-3.4Keywords:
composite restoration, partial replacement, repair, retrospective analysis.Abstract
Purpose of the study. To systematize data on the clinical effectiveness of using approach with partial replacement (repair) of defective composite restorations, taking into account specific indications and prognosis of distant results after its implementation. Research methods. The study was conducted in the form of retrospective analysis of literature data. Formation of publications’ sample for content analysis was provided by the search of relevant scientific works within the PubMed database (https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and within Google Scholar search engine (https://scholar.google.com) while using keywords and corresponding Mesh-matches. Scientific novelty. The data obtained as a result of processing specialized scientific literature justified the feasibility of implementing an approach with partial replacement (repair) of defective composite restorations instead of their complete replacement, if taking into account specific clinical indications and a number of patient-associated and tooth-specific parameters. There is a deficiency of high-quality evidences that may statistically confirm advantages of defective composite restorations’ total replacement over a partial replacement approach. The most problematic aspect in ensuring reliable results of composite restoration repair associated with the need to form predicted clinically-effective connection at the interface between the remaining part of the primary restoration and new portions of the material. Solution of such problem provided by several algorithms of surface treatment, which has been proposed for remaining part of the restoration and the adjacent enamel and dentin tissue. Conclusions. Partial replacement (repair) of defective composite restorations provided due to the appropriate clinical indications is an effective option of therapeutic intervention, which contributes to the prolongation of problematic construction functioning and minimizes the reduction of residual enamel and dentin. The relative risk of unsuccessful functioning results among composite restorations that have been repaired and those being fully replaced due to the different types of defects is similar according to the analyzed data during analogical periods of monitoring, while cost-effectiveness of both these approaches in long termed perspective is also not significantly different.
References
Federation F.W. Repair of restorations: Adopted by the General Assembly: September 2019, San Francisco, United States of America. International Dental Journal. 2020. Vol. 70(1). P. 7-8.
Blum I.R., Lynch C.D., Wilson N.H. Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry. 2014. Vol. 6. P. 81-7.
Blum I.R., Özcan M. Reparative dentistry: possibilities and limitations. Current Oral Health Reports. 2018. Vol. 5(4). P. 264-9.
Blum I.R., Lynch C.D. Repair versus replacement of defective direct dental restorations in posterior teeth of adults. Primary dental journal. 2014. Vol. 3(2). P. 62-7.
The opinions of manufacturers of resin-based composite materials towards the repair of failing composite restorations / I.R. Blum, D.C. Jagger, J.T. Newton [et al.]. Primary Dental Care. 2009. Vol. 4. P. 149-53.
Blum I.R. Restoration repair as a contemporary approach to tooth preservation: criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Primary dental journal. 2019. Vol. 8(1). P. 38-43.
Blum I.R. Summary of: repair vs replacement of failed restorations in general dental practice: factors influencing treatment choices and outcomes. British dental journal. 2015. Vol. 218(1). P. 22-3.
Kanzow P., Wiegand A. Teaching of composite restoration repair: Trends and quality of teaching over the past 20 years. Journal of Dentistry. 2020. Vol. 95. P. 103303.
Repair versus replacement of defective direct restorations: A cross-sectional study among US dentists / W. Kattan, O. Urquhart, C. Comnick [et al.]. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2021. Vol. 152(11). P. 927-35.
Defective restoration repair or replacement: An American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators Panel survey / J.B. da Costa, K. Frazier, M.L. Duong [et al.]. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2021. Vol. 152(4). P. 329-30.
Kim S., Yeganova L., Wilbur W. J. Meshable: searching PubMed abstracts by utilizing MeSH and MeSH-derived topical terms. Bioinformatics. 2016. Vol. 32(19). P. 3044-3046.
Younger P. Using google scholar to conduct a literature search. Nursing Standard. 2010. Vol. 24(45). P. 40-6.
Lindgren B.M., Lundman B., Graneheim U. H. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International journal of nursing studies. 2020. Vol. 108. P. 103632.
Loomans B.A., Özcan M. Intraoral repair of direct and indirect restorations: procedures and guidelines. Operative dentistry. 2016. Vol. 41(S7). P. S68-78.
Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair / P. Kanzow, A. Wiegand, F. Schwendicke [et al.]. Journal of Dentistry. 2019. Vol. 86. P. 1-6.
Dental Composite Restorations Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis / A.Q. Abdullah, A.S. Daniyah, A.D. Ebtihal [et al.]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International. 2021. Vol. 33 (59A). P. 707-38.
Evaluation of varied repair protocols applied to aged composite resin / T. Bonstein, D. Garlapo, Jr. J. Donarummo [et al.]. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2005. Vol. 7(1). P. 41-9.
Ugurlu M., Sari F. The clinical success of repaired posterior composite restorations with and without silane application. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2022. P. 1-9.
Andrade A.P., Shimaoka A.M., de Carvalho R.C. Composite resin repairs: what is the most effective protocol?. Brazilian Dental Science. 2017. Vol. 20(1). P. 99-109.
Composite repair: On the fatigue strength of universal adhesives / T.H. Stape, O. Tulkki, I.A. Salim [et al.]. Dental Materials. 2022. Vol. 38(2). P. 231-41.
Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite / M.O. Sharif, M. Catleugh, A. Merry [et al.]. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014. Vol. 2014 (2). P. CD005971.
Can repair increase the survival of failed restorations when compared with replacement? Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis / J.R. Garbim, C.M. Laux, S.J. Kim [et al.]. Research Square. Preprint. P. 1-8.
Risk of failure of repaired versus replaced defective direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis / L.T. Mendes, D. Pedrotti, L. Casagrande [et al.]. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2022. Vol. 26(7). P. 4917-4927.
Longevity of repaired restorations: a practice based study / N.J. Opdam, E.M. Bronkhorst, B.A. Loomans [et al.]. Journal of Dentistry. 2012. Vol. 40(10). P. 829-35.
Kanzow P., Wiegand A. Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations. Dental Materials. 2020. Vol. 36(1). P. 108-18.
Hickel R., Brüshaver K., Ilie N. Repair of restorations– criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dental Materials. 2013. Vol. 29(1). P. 28-50.
Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial / E. Fernández, J. Martín, P. Vildósola [et al.]. Journal of dentistry. 2015. Vol. 43(2). P. 279-86.
Repair may increase survival of direct posterior restorations–A practice based study / L. Casagrande, M. Laske, E.M. Bronkhorst [et al.]. Journal of dentistry. 2017. Vol. 64. P. 30-6.
Long-term treatment costs and cost-effectiveness of restoration repair versus replacement / P. Kanzow, J. Krois, A. Wiegand [et al.]. Dental Materials. 2021. Vol. 37(6). P. e375-81.
