Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite.

BACKGROUND: Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth-coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any filling material composites have a finite life-span. Traditionally, replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective composite restorations, however, repairing composites offers an alternative more conservative approach to the tooth structure where restorations are partly still serviceable. Repairing the restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of replacing (with resin composite) versus repair (with resin composite) in the management of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth. SEARCH METHODS: For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 24 July 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 24 July 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 24 July 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 24 July 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 24 July 2013); and OpenGrey (to 24 July 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations in adults with a defective molar restoration in a permanent molar or premolar teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 298 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially relevant studies were retrieved but none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, time and costs.

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam.

BACKGROUND: Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. Repair of amalgam restorations is often more conservative of the tooth structure than replacement. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of replacing (with amalgam) versus repair (with amalgam) in the management of defective amalgam dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth. SEARCH METHODS: For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 5 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 August 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 August 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 5 August 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 5 August 2013) and OpenGrey (to 5 August 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of amalgam restorations in adults with a defective restoration in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 201 potentially eligible studies after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of the relevant studies were retrieved but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, distress and anxiety, time and costs.

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam.

BACKGROUND: Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of replacement (with amalgam) versus repair (with amalgam) in the management of defective amalgam dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 23rd September 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1950 to 23rd September 2009); EMBASE (1980 to 23rd September 2009); ISI Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI) (1981 to 22nd December 2009); ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22nd December 2009); BIOSIS (1985 to 22nd December 2009); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. There were no language limitations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial, involving replacement and repair of amalgam restorations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 145 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication and examination of the titles and abstracts all but three studies were deemed irrelevant. After further analysis of the full texts of the three studies identified, none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no published randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled clinical trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, distress and anxiety, time and costs.

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite.

BACKGROUND: Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any filling material composites have a finite life-span. Traditionally, replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective composite restorations, however, repairing composites offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are partly still serviceable. Repairing the restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of replacement (with resin composite) versus repair (with resin composite) in the management of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 23rd September 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1950 to 23rd September 2009); EMBASE (1980 to 23rd September 2009); ISI Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI) (1981 to 22nd December 2009); ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22nd December 2009); BIOSIS (1985 to 22nd December 2009); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. There were no language limitations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial, involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 279 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication and examination of the titles and abstracts all but four studies were deemed irrelevant. After further analysis of the full texts of the four studies identified, none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no published randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled clinical trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, time and costs.

Are general dental practitioners providing best practice in prevention in everyday general practice?

AIMS: To discover whether general dental practitioners are providing best practice in prevention, as defined by the 'Delivering Better Oral Health' toolkit, in everyday general practice. METHOD: A questionnaire was created with five scenarios describing the key findings of the examination of five hypothetical patients. Dentists attending a postgraduate meeting were asked to list all the preventive treatment and advice they would give each patient. The content of their answers was compared with the toolkit by two researchers. RESULTS: Twenty four dentists completed the questionnaire. In general terms, they did not mention much of the specific advice or recommend the treatment listed in the toolkit except that a significant proportion would apply fluoride varnish to children's teeth and all would give smoking cessation advice where appropriate. Suitable recall intervals, defined by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, were suggested for three of the scenarios but the advice was inconsistent for the other two scenarios. CONCLUSION: This small investigation suggests that dentists' implementation of prevention, as advised by the toolkit, is not thorough or consistent. Comprehensive adoption of prevention in dentistry will require intensive multifaceted education and organisational change such as might be provided by the new contracts being piloted at present.