TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical Decision-Making of Repair vs. Replacement of Defective Direct Dental Restorations
T2 - A Multinational Cross-Sectional Study With Meta-Analysis
AU - Hatipoğlu, Ömer
AU - Martins, João Filipe Brochado
AU - Karobari, Mohmed Isaqali
AU - Taha, Nessrin
AU - Aldhelai, Thiyezen Abdullah
AU - Ayyad, Daoud M
AU - Madfa, Ahmed A
AU - Martin-Biedma, Benjamin
AU - Fernández-Grisales, Rafael
AU - Omarova, Bakhyt A
AU - Lim, Wen Yi
AU - Alfirjani, Suha
AU - Nijakowski, Kacper
AU - Sugumaran, Surendar
AU - Petridis, Xenos
AU - Krmek, Silvana Jukić
AU - Wahjuningrum, Dian Agustin
AU - Iqbal, Azhar
AU - Abidin, Imran Zainal
AU - Intriago, Martha Gallegos
AU - Elhamouly, Yasmine
AU - Palma, Paulo Jorge
AU - Hatipoğlu, Fatma Pertek
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Objectives: This web-based survey, conducted across multiple countries, sought to explore the factors that impact the decision-making of clinicians when it comes to managing defective direct restorations. Methods: A survey consisting of 14 questions was sent out to dentists in 21 countries through various online platforms. The survey consisted of two sections. The first contained five questions about demographic information, while the second involved eight clinical scenarios. In the second part, participants were tasked with deciding whether to repair or replace defective composite and amalgam restorations. Results: Three thousand six hundred eighty dental practitioners completed the survey. For composite restorations, repair was preferred in scenarios like partial loss or fracture (RR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.89; p = 0.002), whereas replacement was favored for secondary caries (RR:2.43; 95% CI: 1.87, 3.16; p < 0.001) and open/defective margins (RR:3.93; 95% CI: 2.68, 5.76;p < 0.001). Amalgam restorations were mostly replaced across all scenarios. The main factors influencing decision-making were caries risk, restoration size, and patient oral hygiene. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across countries. Conclusion: This study underscores the complexity of the decision-making process and the need for evidence-based guidelines to inform clinicians' decisions regarding restoration management. Patient-level factors predominantly influence decision-making, emphasizing the need for individualized approaches. Clinical Significance: The study reveals that the material type in the original restoration is a critical determinant, with composite restorations being repaired in specific scenarios, while amalgam restorations are consistently replaced across different countries. Key patient and tooth-level factors, such as high caries risk, poor oral hygiene, and restoration size, significantly impact clinicians' decisions, often favoring replacement over repair. These findings underscore the necessity for evidence-based guidelines to assist clinicians in making informed choices, ultimately enhancing the quality of patient care.
AB - Objectives: This web-based survey, conducted across multiple countries, sought to explore the factors that impact the decision-making of clinicians when it comes to managing defective direct restorations. Methods: A survey consisting of 14 questions was sent out to dentists in 21 countries through various online platforms. The survey consisted of two sections. The first contained five questions about demographic information, while the second involved eight clinical scenarios. In the second part, participants were tasked with deciding whether to repair or replace defective composite and amalgam restorations. Results: Three thousand six hundred eighty dental practitioners completed the survey. For composite restorations, repair was preferred in scenarios like partial loss or fracture (RR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.89; p = 0.002), whereas replacement was favored for secondary caries (RR:2.43; 95% CI: 1.87, 3.16; p < 0.001) and open/defective margins (RR:3.93; 95% CI: 2.68, 5.76;p < 0.001). Amalgam restorations were mostly replaced across all scenarios. The main factors influencing decision-making were caries risk, restoration size, and patient oral hygiene. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across countries. Conclusion: This study underscores the complexity of the decision-making process and the need for evidence-based guidelines to inform clinicians' decisions regarding restoration management. Patient-level factors predominantly influence decision-making, emphasizing the need for individualized approaches. Clinical Significance: The study reveals that the material type in the original restoration is a critical determinant, with composite restorations being repaired in specific scenarios, while amalgam restorations are consistently replaced across different countries. Key patient and tooth-level factors, such as high caries risk, poor oral hygiene, and restoration size, significantly impact clinicians' decisions, often favoring replacement over repair. These findings underscore the necessity for evidence-based guidelines to assist clinicians in making informed choices, ultimately enhancing the quality of patient care.
KW - amalgam
KW - composite resin
KW - minimally invasive dentistry
KW - repair
KW - replacement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85208099081&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jerd.13321
DO - 10.1111/jerd.13321
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85208099081
SN - 1496-4155
JO - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
JF - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
ER -