Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Gordan, Valeria V.; Riley, Joseph L.; Geraldeli, Saulo; Rindal, D. Brad; Qvist, Vibeke; Fellows, Jeffrey L.; Kellum, H. Paul; Gilbert, Gregg H.

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0238

Cited by 129 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[4][5][6] Failures after this period have been associated with secondary caries, marginal deficiencies, degradation/wear, fracture, or loss of anatomic form. 5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] The replacement of failed restorations is the most common treatment in dentistry 10 years after initial placement, and long-term studies have shown that when failure takes place it typically happens within the first 24 months. 17 Dentists frequently replace restorations that could be treated in a more conservative manner.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Results of a 10-year Clinical Trial of Repair of Amalgam Restorations

Moncada

Vildósola

Fernández

et al. 2015

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artículo de publicación ISIThe aim of this prospective, blind, and randomized clinical trial was to assess the effectiveness of repair of localized clinical defects in amalgam restorations that were initially scheduled for replacement. A cohort of 20 patients with 40 (Class I and Class II) amalgam restorations that presented one or more clinical features that deviated from the ideal (Bravo or Charlie) according to US Public Health Service criteria, were randomly assigned to either the repair or the replacement group—A: repair, n = 19; and B: replacement, n = 21. Two examiners who had calibration expertise evaluated the restorations at baseline and 10 years after according to seven parameters: marginal occlusal adaptation, anatomic form, surface roughness, marginal staining, contact, secondary caries, and luster. After 10 years, 30 restorations (75%) were evaluated (Group A: n = 17; Group B: n = 13). Repaired and replaced amalgam restorations showed similar survival outcomes regarding marginal defects and secondary caries in patients with low and medium caries risk, and most of the restorations were considered clinically acceptable after 10 years. Repair treatment increased the potential for tooth longevity, using a minimally interventional procedure. All restorations trend to downgrade over time

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Results of a 10-year Clinical Trial of Repair of Amalgam Restorations

Moncada

Vildósola

Fernández

et al. 2015

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Significant differences exist among dentists when deciding whether or not a restoration should be replaced. [28][29][30][31][32][33] Although minimally invasive dentistry has been introduced in the dental curriculum, it has taken place only in recent years. Therefore, several dentists have not been trained on proper diagnosis and application of the minimally invasive procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal Invasive Treatment for Defective Restorations: Five-Year Results Using Sealants

Martín

Fernández

Estay

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Replacement of dental restorations has been the traditional treatment for restorations that are defective. In this five-year randomized clinical trial, restorations with localized marginal defects were treated with sealants. Thirty-two patients (mean age, 26.8 years) with 126 Class I and Class II restorations with defective margins (amalgam n=69 and resin-based composite n=57) were recruited. Treatment was seal with pit and fissure sealant on localized marginal defects (group A: n=43) and was compared with total restoration replacement (group B: n=40) and untreated restorations (group C: n=43) as negative and positive controls. Restorations were assessed by two examiners using the modified US Public Health Service criteria, observing five clinical parameters: marginal adaptation, roughness, marginal stain, teeth sensitivity, and secondary caries at baseline and at five years after treatment. At the five-year recall examination, 23 patients with 90 restorations (71.4% recall rate) were examined. A significant improvement was observed in the marginal adaptation of the restorations in group A compared with group B. None of the treated group showed trends to downgrade in any parameter. Tooth sensitivity and secondary caries showed a low frequency in all groups. No significant difference in marginal adaptation of the restorations was found between amalgam and resin-based composite restorations (p=0.191). This study demonstrated that marginal sealing of restorations is a minimally invasive treatment that may be used instead of the replacement of restorations with localized marginal defects.

show abstract

“…In a recent meta-analysis study evaluating over 18,000 practitioners, Innes and Schwendicke found that over 21% would opt for the invasive 'drill and fill' option for enamel-only lesions compared to less-invasive approaches [27]. Separately, Gordan et al reported in 2012 that among 197 small (58%, or 114), large (37%, or 72) and public health (6%, or 11) dental practices in the Dental Practice-based Research Network (in the United States, Denmark, Norway and Sweden), 75% (or, 7,073) restorations were replaced compared to the 25% (or, 2,411) that were repaired [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emphasizing Minimally Invasive Strategies for Improved Dental Care of Children

Karlinsey¹

2017

JDODT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Cited by 129 publications

References 28 publications

Longitudinal Results of a 10-year Clinical Trial of Repair of Amalgam Restorations

Longitudinal Results of a 10-year Clinical Trial of Repair of Amalgam Restorations

Minimal Invasive Treatment for Defective Restorations: Five-Year Results Using Sealants

Emphasizing Minimally Invasive Strategies for Improved Dental Care of Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About