Literature DB >> 31108118

Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair.

Philipp Kanzow1, Annette Wiegand2, Falk Schwendicke3, Gerd Göstemeyer3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: While repairs are increasingly recommended to manage partially defective restorations, performing the repair (including bonding to different substrates) can be challenging, and dentists should adhere to established repair protocols. We aimed to systematically assess the consistency and quality of repair protocols. DATA: 808 records were initially identified and 71 repair protocols based on 84 sources included. The number of published sources over time increased exponentially (p < 0.001). Recommended treatment steps varied widely. Some treatment steps were only recommended by a minority of protocols, while others were consistently recommended (e.g. surface roughening, hydrofluoric acid etching of silicate ceramics, application of an adhesive/bonding agent). The overall quality of included sources was moderate (mean ± SD 3.7 ± 0.9 out of 7 points). SOURCES: Electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase) were searched, hand searches using Google and Google Scholar conducted, and the reference lists of included full texts screened and cross-referenced. STUDY SELECTION: (Non-)systematic reviews, working instructions, and textbooks with protocols on direct composite repair restorations for partially defective (1) composite, (2) amalgam, (3) porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFMs) with exposed metal base, (4) ceramic/PFMs without exposed metal base, and (5) full metal restorations were included. Data synthesis was performed by tabulation of recommended treatment steps and descriptive statistics. The quality of included sources was assessed based on a checklist for guideline appraisal (MiChe).
CONCLUSIONS: The main treatment steps were consistently reported across repair protocols. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dentists may want to adopt widely recommended treatment steps when performing repairs of different restoration materials in their daily practice.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision-making; Evidence-based practice; Minimally invasive dentistry; Restoration repair; Systematic review

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31108118     DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent        ISSN: 0300-5712            Impact factor:   4.379


  5 in total

1.  Potential of «universal» bonding agents for composite repair.

Authors:  Frode Staxrud; Håkon Valen
Journal:  Biomater Investig Dent       Date:  2022-05-08

2.  Risk of failure of repaired versus replaced defective direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laura Teixeira Mendes; Djessica Pedrotti; Luciano Casagrande; Tathiane Larissa Lenzi
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.606

3.  Effect of Varying Working Distances between Sandblasting Device and Composite Substrate Surface on the Repair Bond Strength.

Authors:  Phoebe Burrer; Amanda Costermani; Matej Par; Thomas Attin; Tobias T Tauböck
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Silanizing Effectiveness on the Bond Strength of Aged Bulk-Fill Composite Repaired After Sandblasting or Bur Abrasion Treatments: An in vitro Study.

Authors:  Huda Hashim; Manal Hussain Abd-Alla
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2022-09-05

5.  Influence of commercial adhesive with/without silane on the bond strength of resin-based composite repaired within twenty-four hours.

Authors:  Ker-Kong Chen; Jeng-Huey Chen; Ju-Hui Wu; Je-Kang Du
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 2.080

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.