Arias R, Herrera I, Bersezio C, Chaple GAM, Fernández E

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 1-12
PDF size: 752.90 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The replacement of defective restorations, which leads to a greater loss of the dental remnant before each replacement, represents the large majority of the dentist's practice.
Objective: To determine if there is any variation in students´ clinical criterion in relation to the decision of replacement of composite resin restorations prior to and following reconditioning.
Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted. The sample was composed of 40 fifth-year students in a universe of 72. A set of photographs showing defective restorations in one or more parameters evaluated according to RYGE / USPHS criteria was used. They were later reconditioned, so there were photographs prior to and following conservative treatment. Based on the photographs shown, a survey in which they had to indicate the choice of treatment was performed.
Results: We observed that there is a great variation in the choice of treatment prior to the repair with conservative treatments (38%) and non-conservative ones (62%), compared to the same resin restoration after the choice of conservative treatment (83%) and non-conservative one (17%). Using the McNemar Test, p<0.0001 was obtained between the choice of conservative treatment over the non-conservative one after the restoration reconditioning had been performed.
Conclusions: There is a change in perception of the indication of treatment to repair defective restorations towards a conservative alternative after they have undergone minimally invasive procedures.

REFERENCES

1. Lynch CD, Blum IR, Frazier KB, Haisch LD, Wilson NH. Repair or replacement of defective direct resin-based composite restorations: contemporary teaching in U.S. and Canadian dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012; 143 (2): 157-63.

2. Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NH. Teaching of the repair of defective composite restorations in Scandinavian dental schools. J Oral Rehabil. 2012; 39 (3): 210-6.

3. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138 (6): 775-83.

4. Blum IR, Jagger DC, Wilson NH. Defective dental restorations: to repair or not to repair? Part 1: direct composite restorations. Dent Update. 2011; 38 (2): 78-80.

5. Loomans B, Ozcan M. Intraoral Repair of Direct and Indirect Restorations: Procedures and Guidelines. Oper Dent. 2016; 41 (S7): S68-S78.

6. Valentea RS, Gonçalves AP, Fernández E, LoomanB, Moraes RR. Repair bond strength of dental composites: systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 2016; 69: 15-26.

7. Heaven TJ, Gordan VV, Litaker MS, Fellows JL, Rindal DB, Gilbert GH. Concordance between responses to questionnaire scenarios and actual treatment to repair or replace dental restorations in the National Dental PBRN. J Dent. 2015; 43 (11): 1379-84.

8. Estay J, Martin J, Vildosola P, Villablanca C, Mjor I, de Oliveira OB, et al. Sealing of restorations with marginal defects does not affect their longevity. Am J Dent. 2018; 31 (2): 6.

9. Estay J, Martín J, Viera V, Valdivieso J, Bersezio C, Vildosola P, et al. 12 Years of Repair of Amalgam and Composite Resins: A Clinical Study. Oper Dent. 2018; 43 (1): 12-21.

10. Estay J, Bersezio C, Faune J, Correa MP, Ángel P, Martín J, et al. Effects of Sealing Marginal Occlusal Defects of Composite Restorations with a Nanofiller-Reinforced Flowable Resin Composite: A Double-Blind, Randomised Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2018; 16 (6): 491-7.

11. Casagrande L, Laske M, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans M, Opdam NJM. Repair may increase survival of direct posterior restorations - A practice based study. J Dent. 2017; 64: 30-6.

12. Fernández E, Martín J, Vildosola P, Oliveira OBJ, Gordan V, Mjor I, et al. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent. 2015; 43 (2): 279-86.

13. Cardoso M, Baratieri LN, Ritter AV. The effect of finishing and polishing on the decision to replace existing amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int. 1999; 30 (6): 6.

14. Gordan VV, Riley JL, Blaser PK, Mjör IA. 2-year clinical evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of defective. Oper Dent [Internet]. 2006 Jul [Citado 12/09/2019];31(4):8. Disponible en: https://www.jopdentonline.org/doi/pdf/10.2341/05-112

15. Moncada G, Fernández E, Mena K, Vildosola P, Estay J, De Oliveira OB, et al. Long-term Performance of Refurbished Amalgam Restorations: 10-year Follow-up. Oral Health Prev Dent [Internet]. 2017 Jul [Citado 12/09/2019];15(5):11. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.a38775

16. Gordan VV, Riley J, Geraldeli S, Williams OD, Spoto JC, Gilbert GH. The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN. J Dent [Internet]. 2014 Dec [Citado 12/09/2019];42(12):16. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.005

17. Fernández E, Martín J, Vildosola P, Estay J, de Oliveira Junior O, Gordan V, et al. Sealing Composite With Defective Margins, Good Care or Over Treatment? Results of a 10-year Clinical Trial. Oper Dent [Internet]. 2015 Mar [Citado 12/09/2019];40(2):9. Disponible en: https://www.jopdentonline.org/doi/pdf/10.2341/14-143-C

18. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent [Internet]. 2014 Apr [Citado 12/09/2019];42(4):7. Disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571214000256?via%3Dihub

19. Fernández E, Godoy EF, Vildosola P, Grez PV, Bersezio C, Miranda CB, et al. Does refurbishing composites lead to short-term effects or long-lasting improvement?. Am J Dent [Internet]. 2015 [Citado 12/09/2019];28(4):6. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26437500