Sealing, Refurbishment and Repair of Class I and Class II Defective Restorations

Moncada, Gustavo; Martín, Javier; Fernández, Eduardo; Hempel, M; Mjör, Ivar A.; Gordan, Valeria V.

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0191

Cited by 113 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Repairing a restoration with a modified surgical approach that includes creating smaller tooth preparations and modifying the cavity-prep design could be, in many cases, the most conservative treatment option. 13,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Repair is an option for the treatment of defective amalgam restorations that present with localized defects. It involves the removal of the part of the restoration that is defective and any carious tissue adjacent and subjacent to the defective area and the remaining restoration of the prepared site.…”

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

“…The current available evidence from longitudinal observational studies suggests that repairing restorations have short term survival rates similar to total replacement. 41 This information allied to a perception that repairs are less invasive for patients and consume less resources support a provisional view that GDPs should favour repair over replacement.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The survival rate of repairs at three years was as good as total replacement, 41 with no failures in the repair group. This information needs to be considered alongside the fact that repairs can often be completed without the use of local anaesthesia and are therefore less distressing for a patient when compared with total replacement with local anaesthesia.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 82%

“…The bibliographic references in these papers were also examined for other potentially eligible studies, but no further studies were identifi ed. Three of the remaining studies [39][40][41] were common to both resin composites and amalgam, whereas only one study 28 investigated composite resins.…”

Section: Repair or Replacement Of Defective Restorations -The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inadequate and incomplete reporting of the results in these studies meant that the data were unusable and attempts to contact the authors for clarifi cation proved unsuccessful. In Moncada 41 patients were not randomly allocated to treatment groups but were assigned into groups according to defect type and therefore this study was also excluded from the review.…”

Section: Repair or Replacement Of Defective Restorations -The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Repair or replacement of restorations: do we accept built in obsolescence or do we improve the evidence?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam

Sharif¹,

Merry²,

Catleugh³

et al. 2010

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sealing, Refurbishment and Repair of Class I and Class II Defective Restorations

Cited by 113 publications

References 9 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

Repair or replacement of restorations: do we accept built in obsolescence or do we improve the evidence?

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About