Repair vs replacement of direct composite restorations: a survey of teaching and operative techniques in Oceania

Paul A Brunton; Amna Ghazali; Zahidah H Tarif; Carolina Loch; Christopher Lynch; Nairn Wilson; Igor R Blum

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.010

Repair vs replacement of direct composite restorations: a survey of teaching and operative techniques in Oceania

Paul A Brunton, Amna Ghazali, Zahidah H Tarif, Carolina Loch, Christopher Lynch, Nairn Wilson, Igor R Blum

Centre for Dental Education

Sir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, 9054 Dunedin, New Zealand. Electronic address: [email protected].
Sir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago. Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
Professor/ Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, University Dental School & Hospital/ University College Cork, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
Unit of Dental Public Health, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas Hospitals, London, UK; Dental Hygiene Department, Portland Community College, Portland, OR, USA.
Maurice Wohl Dental Centre, King's College Hospital and King's College London Dental Institute, UK. Electronic address: [email protected].

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the teaching and operative techniques for the repair and/or replacement of direct resin-based composite restorations (DCRs) in dental schools in Oceania.

METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire was mailed to the heads of operative dentistry in 16 dental schools in Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea). The survey asked whether the repair of DCRs was taught within the curriculum; the rationale behind the teaching; how techniques were taught, indications for repair, operative techniques, materials used, patient acceptability, expected longevity and recall systems.

RESULTS: All 16 schools participated in the study. Thirteen (81%) reported the teaching of composite repairs as an alternative to replacement. Most schools taught the theoretical and practical aspects of repair at a clinical level only. All 13 schools (100%) agreed on tooth substance preservation being the main reason for teaching repair. The main indications for repair were marginal defects (100%), followed by secondary caries (69%). All 13 schools that performed repairs reported high patient acceptability, and considered it a definitive measure. Only three schools (23%) claimed to have a recall system in place following repair of DCRs. Most respondents either did not know or did not answer when asked about the longevity of DCRs.

CONCLUSIONS: Repair of DCRs seems to be a viable alternative to replacement, which is actively taught within Oceania. Advantages include it being minimally invasive, preserving tooth structure, and time and money saving. However, standardised guidelines need to be developed and further clinical long-term studies need to be carried out.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The decision between replacing or repairing a defective composite restoration tends to be based on what clinicians have been taught, tempered by experience and judgement. This study investigated the current status of teaching and operative techniques of repair of direct composite restorations in dental schools in Oceania.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	62-67
Number of pages	6
Journal	Journal of Dentistry
Volume	59
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.010
Publication status	Published - Apr 2017

Keywords

Composite Resins/chemistry
Curriculum
Dental Bonding
Dental Caries
Dental Materials/chemistry
Dental Restoration Failure
Dental Restoration Repair/methods
Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods
Dentistry, Operative/education
Education, Dental
Humans
Oceania
Retreatment
Schools, Dental/statistics & numerical data
Surveys and Questionnaires

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.010

Cite this

@article{eddd055bef7046dfa99cb783de115967,

title = "Repair vs replacement of direct composite restorations: a survey of teaching and operative techniques in Oceania",

abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the teaching and operative techniques for the repair and/or replacement of direct resin-based composite restorations (DCRs) in dental schools in Oceania.METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire was mailed to the heads of operative dentistry in 16 dental schools in Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea). The survey asked whether the repair of DCRs was taught within the curriculum; the rationale behind the teaching; how techniques were taught, indications for repair, operative techniques, materials used, patient acceptability, expected longevity and recall systems.RESULTS: All 16 schools participated in the study. Thirteen (81%) reported the teaching of composite repairs as an alternative to replacement. Most schools taught the theoretical and practical aspects of repair at a clinical level only. All 13 schools (100%) agreed on tooth substance preservation being the main reason for teaching repair. The main indications for repair were marginal defects (100%), followed by secondary caries (69%). All 13 schools that performed repairs reported high patient acceptability, and considered it a definitive measure. Only three schools (23%) claimed to have a recall system in place following repair of DCRs. Most respondents either did not know or did not answer when asked about the longevity of DCRs.CONCLUSIONS: Repair of DCRs seems to be a viable alternative to replacement, which is actively taught within Oceania. Advantages include it being minimally invasive, preserving tooth structure, and time and money saving. However, standardised guidelines need to be developed and further clinical long-term studies need to be carried out.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The decision between replacing or repairing a defective composite restoration tends to be based on what clinicians have been taught, tempered by experience and judgement. This study investigated the current status of teaching and operative techniques of repair of direct composite restorations in dental schools in Oceania.",

keywords = "Composite Resins/chemistry, Curriculum, Dental Bonding, Dental Caries, Dental Materials/chemistry, Dental Restoration Failure, Dental Restoration Repair/methods, Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods, Dentistry, Operative/education, Education, Dental, Humans, Oceania, Retreatment, Schools, Dental/statistics & numerical data, Surveys and Questionnaires",

author = "Brunton, {Paul A} and Amna Ghazali and Tarif, {Zahidah H} and Carolina Loch and Christopher Lynch and Nairn Wilson and Blum, {Igor R}",

year = "2017",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.010",

language = "English",

volume = "59",

pages = "62--67",

journal = "Journal of Dentistry",

issn = "0300-5712",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repair vs replacement of direct composite restorations

T2 - a survey of teaching and operative techniques in Oceania

AU - Brunton, Paul A

AU - Ghazali, Amna

AU - Tarif, Zahidah H

AU - Loch, Carolina

AU - Lynch, Christopher

AU - Wilson, Nairn

AU - Blum, Igor R

PY - 2017/4

Y1 - 2017/4

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the teaching and operative techniques for the repair and/or replacement of direct resin-based composite restorations (DCRs) in dental schools in Oceania.METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire was mailed to the heads of operative dentistry in 16 dental schools in Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea). The survey asked whether the repair of DCRs was taught within the curriculum; the rationale behind the teaching; how techniques were taught, indications for repair, operative techniques, materials used, patient acceptability, expected longevity and recall systems.RESULTS: All 16 schools participated in the study. Thirteen (81%) reported the teaching of composite repairs as an alternative to replacement. Most schools taught the theoretical and practical aspects of repair at a clinical level only. All 13 schools (100%) agreed on tooth substance preservation being the main reason for teaching repair. The main indications for repair were marginal defects (100%), followed by secondary caries (69%). All 13 schools that performed repairs reported high patient acceptability, and considered it a definitive measure. Only three schools (23%) claimed to have a recall system in place following repair of DCRs. Most respondents either did not know or did not answer when asked about the longevity of DCRs.CONCLUSIONS: Repair of DCRs seems to be a viable alternative to replacement, which is actively taught within Oceania. Advantages include it being minimally invasive, preserving tooth structure, and time and money saving. However, standardised guidelines need to be developed and further clinical long-term studies need to be carried out.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The decision between replacing or repairing a defective composite restoration tends to be based on what clinicians have been taught, tempered by experience and judgement. This study investigated the current status of teaching and operative techniques of repair of direct composite restorations in dental schools in Oceania.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the teaching and operative techniques for the repair and/or replacement of direct resin-based composite restorations (DCRs) in dental schools in Oceania.METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire was mailed to the heads of operative dentistry in 16 dental schools in Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea). The survey asked whether the repair of DCRs was taught within the curriculum; the rationale behind the teaching; how techniques were taught, indications for repair, operative techniques, materials used, patient acceptability, expected longevity and recall systems.RESULTS: All 16 schools participated in the study. Thirteen (81%) reported the teaching of composite repairs as an alternative to replacement. Most schools taught the theoretical and practical aspects of repair at a clinical level only. All 13 schools (100%) agreed on tooth substance preservation being the main reason for teaching repair. The main indications for repair were marginal defects (100%), followed by secondary caries (69%). All 13 schools that performed repairs reported high patient acceptability, and considered it a definitive measure. Only three schools (23%) claimed to have a recall system in place following repair of DCRs. Most respondents either did not know or did not answer when asked about the longevity of DCRs.CONCLUSIONS: Repair of DCRs seems to be a viable alternative to replacement, which is actively taught within Oceania. Advantages include it being minimally invasive, preserving tooth structure, and time and money saving. However, standardised guidelines need to be developed and further clinical long-term studies need to be carried out.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The decision between replacing or repairing a defective composite restoration tends to be based on what clinicians have been taught, tempered by experience and judgement. This study investigated the current status of teaching and operative techniques of repair of direct composite restorations in dental schools in Oceania.

KW - Composite Resins/chemistry

KW - Curriculum

KW - Dental Bonding

KW - Dental Caries

KW - Dental Materials/chemistry

KW - Dental Restoration Failure

KW - Dental Restoration Repair/methods

KW - Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods

KW - Dentistry, Operative/education

KW - Education, Dental

KW - Humans

KW - Oceania

KW - Retreatment

KW - Schools, Dental/statistics & numerical data

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 28232082

SN - 0300-5712

VL - 59

SP - 62

EP - 67

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

ER -

Repair vs replacement of direct composite restorations: a survey of teaching and operative techniques in Oceania

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this