Clinical Decision‐Making of Repair vs. Replacement of Defective Direct Dental Restorations: A Multinational Cross‐Sectional Study With Meta‐Analysis

Ömer Hatipoğlu, João Filipe Brochado Martins, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Nessrin A. Taha, Thiyezen Abdullah Aldhelai, Daoud M. Ayyad, Ahmed A. Madfa, Benjamín Martín‐Biedma, Rafael Fernández‐Grisales, Bakhyt A. Omarova

13 more authors

Wen Yi Lim, Suha Alfirjani, Kacper Nijakowski, Surendar Sugumaran, Xenos Petridis, Silvana Jukić Krmek, Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum, Azhar Iqbal, Imran Zainal Abidin, Martha Elena Gallegos Intriago, Yasmine Elhamouly, Paulo Palma, Fatma Pertek Hatipoğlu

2024

Full text Open access: Hybrid Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1111/jerd.13321
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

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.