Replacement Versus Repair of Defective Restorations in Adults: Resin Composite (Review)

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (Review)
Sharif MO, Catleugh M, Merry A, Tickle M, Dunne SM, Brunton P, Aggarwal VR
This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (Review) Copyright 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS HEADER . . . . . . . . . . ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . BACKGROUND . . . . . . . OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . METHODS . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 6 6 7 7 8 10 10 12 12 13
[Intervention Review]
Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite

Mohammad O Sharif2 , Melanie Catleugh3 , Alison Merry4 , Martin Tickle5 , Stephen M Dunne6 , Paul Brunton1 , Vishal R Aggarwal5 Fixed & Removable Prosthodontics, Leeds Dental Institute, Leeds, UK. 2 School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3 Department of Dental Public Health, NHS East Lancashire, Nelson, UK. 4 Public Health Department, NHS Herefordshire, Hereford, UK. 5 Oral Health Unit, National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 6 Primary Dental Care, Kings College London Dental Institute, London, UK Contact address: Paul Brunton, Fixed & Removable Prosthodontics, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9LU, UK. p.a.brunton@leeds.ac.uk. Editorial group: Cochrane Oral Health Group. Publication status and date: New, published in Issue 2, 2010. Review content assessed as up-to-date: 3 January 2010. Citation: Sharif MO, Catleugh M, Merry A, Tickle M, Dunne SM, Brunton P, Aggarwal VR. Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005971. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005971.pub2. Copyright 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1
ABSTRACT Background Composite lling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any lling material composites have a nite 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 identication 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 eld 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.
Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (Review) Copyright 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identied 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 identied, 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.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite Dental amalgam is a widely used material for restoring posterior teeth affected by caries in many countries. However, its use has been decreasing in recent years with the increasing use of composite lling materials. When composite restorations (llings) become defective two treatment options exist: 1) the restoration can be replaced, or 2) the restoration can be repaired. Repairing restorations could save time and as certain repairs may be performed without the use of local anaesthesia they can be less distressing for the patient when compared with replacement. This review did not identify any randomised controlled trials suitable for inclusion that compared the effectiveness of managing defective resin composite restorations by replacing them (with resin composite) versus repairing them (with resin composite) in permanent molar and premolar teeth. Further well designed randomised controlled trials should be conducted and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. They should also explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement of composite restorations and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, time and costs.
BACKGROUND
The treatment of dental caries is currently a major focus of clinical dentistry. Although dental amalgam is a widely used material for the restoration of carious posterior teeth in many countries, in those countries where data are available such as the USA, Australia, Scandinavia, and the UK, its use has been found to be decreasing ( Burke 2004). This is thought to have been due to concerns relating to its lack of adhesive properties, aesthetics, and potential health effects (Lindberg 2005; Roulet 1997). Composite materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth over the last 30 years as a tooth coloured alternative to amalgam (Roulet
1997; Sarrett 2005). These may be placed using either direct or indirect techniques (Roulet 1997). Early composite restorations in posterior teeth were more likely to fail when compared with amalgam restorations (Sarrett 2005). This was due to shrinkage, rapid loss of anatomic form, poor wear and poor colour stability. They also lacked stiffness and adhesion to tooth structure (Lindberg 2005; Roulet 1997; Sarrett 2005). More recently improved resin composites, techniques and instruments have been developed to address these limitations (Sarrett 2005). A systematic review, published in 1999, examined literature on the longevity of routine dental restorations in permanent teeth. This
2
found the most frequently reported median survival time (between 6 to 10 years) of resin composite restorations was comparable with that for amalgam restorations (Downer 1999). Notwithstanding the improvements in resin composite materials, they still present a number of disadvantages (Lindberg 2005). Another review of a wide methodological range of studies of clinical survival of restorations in permanent posterior teeth, mostly published since 1990, identied the principal reasons for failure of restorations placed using contemporaneously available direct resin composites. These were marginal opening with secondary caries, fracture, marginal deterioration, discolouration and wear (Manhart 2004). Failure of composite restorations is often determined using one of a number of scales which identify quality criteria that relate to clinical acceptability (Lindberg 2005; Ryge 1980; Sarrett 2005). A traditional approach to the management of restorations which fail to satisfy strict quality criteria has been one of replacement ( Wilson 1999). Where frank failure of a restoration has occurred there are few alternatives to this approach (Wilson 1999). However, when a restoration is considered to be clinically unacceptable and not suitable for refurbishment, but in part is still serviceable, it may be suitable for repair (Sarrett 2005). This comparatively more conservative approach to the management of defective restorations, when suitable, has the potential to be less costly in terms of time and nancial resources, less traumatic for patients, obviate the need for the use of local anaesthesia and be more conservative of tooth tissue (Frankenberger 2003; Mjor 1993; Wilson 1999). This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of replacement (with resin composite) compared with repair (with resin composite) of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.
Types of studies Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials including split-mouth studies.
Types of participants Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth treated by like for like replacement (i.e. replacement with resin composite) and/or like for like repair (i.e. repair with resin composite). Participants in whom a tooth undergoes further restoration or an extraction for reasons not connected with the repair/replacement restoration (e.g. extraction due to periodontal disease) were not included.
Types of interventions Studies with the following interventions and controls were included: Intervention: repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a molar or premolar tooth with resin composite. Control: replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a molar or premolar tooth with resin composite. In the context of this systematic review, the terms repair and replacement are dened as follows. A repair to a resin composite restoration is dened as the removal of only the defective part of the restoration and/or adjacent tooth tissue followed by the placement of a new partial restoration. A replacement resin composite restoration is dened as the removal of an entire restoration including any bases, liners and secondary caries and tooth tissue where appropriate, followed by the placement of a new restoration. This systematic review was not concerned with studies involving the refurbishment of resin composite restorations. In order to ensure that there is clarity regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria, refurbishment of a resin composite restoration is dened as reshaping or renishing or removal of overhangs in an existing restoration which does not require the placement of additional restorative material. In order to be included in this review, studies must have used clearly dened criteria for assessing whether restorations were defective. Studies were expected to use the same criteria at baseline and follow-up stages. Although criteria for standardising the diagnosis of defective restorations are not well dened or universally accepted, the US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and modied Ryge criteria provide models for this (Ryge 1981).
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. The following null hypothesis was tested: There is no difference in the effectiveness of replacement (with resin composite) of defective resin composite dental restorations compared to the repair (with resin composite) of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.
METHODS
Types of outcome measures
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Primary outcomes
3
The main outcome of interest was success or failure of the replacement or repair restoration and associated tooth as assessed by clinical examination. The primary outcome measures were therefore the clinical acceptability or unacceptability of each restoration, dened by the USPHS criteria, Ryge criteria or modications of these scales, and assessed by clinical examination. It was expected that this would be recorded as success or failure of the restoration and/or that further repair or replacement of the restoration was necessary. Other outcome measures indicating the failure of a replacement or repaired composite restoration included the following occurring in relation to the repaired/replaced restoration: placement of an additional restoration e.g. crown or inlay; root lling; clinical symptoms e.g. pain, swelling, diagnosis of pulpitis, abscess formation, and extraction of the tooth. Studies should have determined success or failure according to the same criteria used in the decision to replace or repair the restoration.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 23rd September 2009) (Appendix 1). The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4) (Appendix 2). MEDLINE (1950 to 23rd September 2009) (Appendix 3). EMBASE (1980 to 23rd September 2009) (Appendix 4). ISI Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI) (1981 to 22nd December 2009) (Appendix 5). ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22nd December 2009) (Appendix 5). BIOSIS (1985 to 22nd December 2009) (Appendix 6). OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) (Appendix 7). Language The search attempted to identify all relevant studies irrespective of language. Any non-English papers identied were to be translated and relevant data extracted by members of The Cochrane Collaboration.
Secondary outcomes
In addition to the main outcome measure, any outcomes reported perioperatively (e.g. pain/discomfort) and postoperatively (i.e. within 48 hours; e.g. pain/discomfort) were to be recorded. Where any other outcomes were presented e.g. related to patient experience or aesthetics these were also to be recorded.
Unpublished studies Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this eld were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. In addition, conference proceedings and abstracts were searched for unpublished studies.
Timing of outcome assessment
The decision on which outcome period to use for the review was to be based on the most commonly reported period(s) of assessment amongst studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Outcome data from all periods of follow-up were to be included, but where the period of follow-up differed between studies, this was to be categorised as medium-term (less than 5 years) or long-term (5 years and above). Time-to-event (survival data) was to be collected and analysed where available.
Handsearching No handsearching was carried out for this review. All relevant journals had either been handsearched as part of the Cochrane Oral Health Groups handsearching programme (see www.ohg.cochrane.org/handsearching.html for information) or were fully indexed on MEDLINE and retrieved as part of the electronic searches. Reference lists of all eligible trials and review articles, and in turn their reference lists, were checked for studies not already identied.
Search methods for identication of studies

For the identication of studies included or considered for this review, detailed search strategies were developed for each database searched. These were based on the search strategy developed for MEDLINE via OVID (see Appendix 3) but revised appropriately for each database to take account of differences in controlled vocabulary and syntax rules. It was decided not to use the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE (as referenced in Chapter 6.4.11.1 and detailed in box 6.4.c of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2, updated September 2009), this was because of poor yield. The subject search used a combination of controlled vocabulary and free text terms. The following databases were searched.
Data collection and analysis
Selection of studies Two review authors, Mohammad Owaise Sharif (MOS) and Vishal Aggarwal (VA), independently assessed the abstracts of studies resulting from the searches. Full text copies of all relevant and potentially relevant studies, those appearing to meet the inclusion criteria, or for which there were insufcient data in the title and abstract to make a clear decision, were obtained. The full text papers were assessed independently and in duplicate by these two review authors and any disagreement on the eligibility of potentially
4
included studies were resolved through discussion and consensus. If consensus could not be reached by the two review authors (MOS and VA), a third review author (Martin Tickle (MT)) was consulted. After assessment by the review authors, any duplicate publications or remaining studies that did not match the inclusion criteria were excluded and the reasons for their exclusion noted. In this review, we did not nd any eligible study to be included. If any studies were eligible, the following steps were to be taken.
High risk of bias (plausible bias that seriously weakens condence in the results) if one or more criteria were not met. The review authors would have reported these assessments for included studies in a risk of bias in included studies table in Review Manager (RevMan).
Measures of treatment effect The effect measures of choice were to be dichotomous data (risk ratio) or time-to-event data.
Data extraction and management Data would have been extracted independently by the two review authors (MOS and VA) using specially designed data extraction forms. For each trial included, the following would have been recorded and presented in study tables: the date that the study was conducted, the country, year of publication and its duration; details of study design, types of intervention, treatments, controls, outcomes; sample size, number recruited, details of withdrawals by study group, age and characteristics of subjects; outcomes, assessment methods and time intervals; study setting and source of funding. If necessary, authors were to be contacted for further information and/or clarication of their publications.
Dealing with missing data Proportions of participants for whom outcome data were not provided would have been recorded in the study table. Missing data would have been dealt with by undertaking available case and intention-to-treat analyses and comparing these using sensitivity analysis.
Assessment of heterogeneity Heterogeneity was to be assessed by examination of the types of participant, intervention and outcome measure in each study. The signicance of discrepancies in the estimates of the treatment effects from the different trials would have been assessed by means of Cochrans test for heterogeneity. Heterogeneity would have been investigated if P < 0.01. Heterogeneity would have been quantied using the I2 statistic.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies If any relevant studies had been identied, two review authors (MOS and VA) would have independently graded the relevant trials following the domain-based evaluation described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2 (updated September 2009) (Higgins 2009). The review authors would then have compared evaluations and discussed and resolved any disagreements. An assessment of the overall risk of bias would have involved the consideration of the relative importance of different domains and studies were to be categorised as low, high or unclear risk of bias. The review authors were to assess the following domains as Yes (i.e. low risk of bias), Unclear (uncertain risk of bias) or No (i.e. high risk of bias): 1. adequate sequence generation; 2. allocation concealment; 3. blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors); 4. incomplete outcome data addressed; 5. free of selective outcome reporting; 6. free of other bias. Risk of bias would have been categorised according to the following: Low risk of bias (plausible bias unlikely to seriously alter the results) if all criteria were met; Unclear risk of bias (plausible bias that raises some doubt about the results) if one or more criteria were assessed as unclear; or
Assessment of reporting biases Publication and other reporting biases would have been tested for using funnel plots and appropriate statistical tests.
Data synthesis (meta-analysis) Meta-analysis would only have been undertaken using comparable studies in which the same outcome measures were reported. Heterogeneity would have rstly been assessed by examining the types of participant, interventions and outcomes in each study. For dichotomous outcomes, the estimate of an intervention would have been summarised as risk ratios with 95% condence intervals. Any continuous outcomes would have been recorded as mean differences with 95% condence intervals. Random-effects models would have been used for all analyses involving more than three trials otherwise xed-effect models were to be used.
Adverse effects Any unexpected or adverse events/outcomes were to be documented if identied in included randomised controlled trials.
5
Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis would have been undertaken to assess the effects of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding on the overall estimates of effect.
were assigned into groups dependant on defect type, therefore this study was also excluded.
Risk of bias in included studies

Subgroup analyses Subgroup analyses would have been undertaken to take account of the use of different inclusion criteria, participants, interventions, techniques, materials, or outcome measures if appropriate. The searches retrieved no randomised controlled trials relevant to this systematic review and thus no assessments of methodological quality were conducted. If relevant trials had been identied then risk of bias would have been assessed as outlined in the Data collection and analysis section.
Choice of summary statistic and estimate of overall effect The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed, and risk ratio values would have been calculated along with 95% condence intervals. If sufcient studies were identied a sensitivity analysis would have been undertaken to examine the effect of concealed allocation and blind outcome assessment on the overall estimates of effect.
Effects of interventions
Although 279 studies were retrieved in our comprehensive search of the literature, none of them were eligible for inclusion for the reasons stated, and therefore no data were available for analysis.
DISCUSSION
The present review sought high level evidence on the effectiveness of managing defective resin composite restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth by replacing (with resin composite) compared with repairing (with resin composite). We found no studies eligible for inclusion in this review. The two randomised trials identied (Moncada 2008 and Moncada 2006) reported on the same set of patients at different follow-up periods. The sample size has not been justied, the method of randomisation was not stated, the results regarding the deterioration of repaired restorations were not reported in a manner to allow differentiation between the repair materials used and so the results were unusable. No mention of allocation concealment, blinding of patient, outcome assessor blinding or reasons for patient withdrawal were given. The authors were contacted for further information and only advised that outcome assessors were blinded. The results from the articles retrieved suggest that repair of restorations could be effective and the survival rate at 2-year follow-up is good. This may be important because some repairs can be done without the use of local anaesthesia and are therefore less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement.
RESULTS
Description of studies
See: Characteristics of excluded studies. The search strategy retrieved 279 references to studies after deduplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts of these references, all but four studies (Gordan 2006; Moncada 2006; Moncada 2008; Moncada 2009) were eliminated and excluded from further review. Full text copies of these remaining studies were sought and subjected to further evaluation. The bibliographical references of these studies were examined but did not provide any additional citations to potentially eligible studies. Finally, none of the retrieved studies met our inclusion criteria: the Gordan 2006 study did not randomise all treatment groups, they only randomised when the options were to replace a restoration or provide no treatment. Moncada 2008 reported on the same set of patients as Moncada 2006, however, this was at a 2-year follow-up as opposed to a 1-year follow-up. This was conrmed by contacting the authors. In these studies the patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups but the method of randomisation was not stated. In the results section the deterioration of repaired restorations was not reported in a manner to allow differentiation between the repair materials used and so the results were unusable. The authors were contacted for further analysis or provision of raw data but this information remains outstanding and until we receive information these studies are excluded. In the Moncada 2009 study, patients were not randomly allocated to treatment groups, they
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS Implications for practice

There are no published randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to this review question. In the absence of any high level reliable evidence, clinicians should base their decisions on clinical
6
experience, individual circumstances and in conjunction with patients preferences where appropriate. The results from the articles retrieved do suggest that repair of restorations could be effective and the survival rate at 2-year follow-up is good. This may be important because some repairs can be done without the use of local anaesthesia and are therefore less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement.
Implications for research

The results of this systematic review conrm the 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/). Important consideration should be given to the method of randomisation, justifying sample size, allocation concealment, blinding of patients, outcome assessor blinding and reasons for patients lost to follow-up during the planning, conducting and reporting phase of the study. All the studies retrieved were medium-term (less than 5 years), a longer term follow-up would be better (5 years and above). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, costs and time which may tend to support repairing which is cheaper, quicker and painless.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr Anne-Marie Glenny, Mrs Sylvia Bickley, Miss Anne Littlewood and Mrs Luisa M Fernandez Maulefnch.
REFERENCES
References to studies excluded from this review

Gordan 2006 {published data only} Gordan VV, Shen C, Riley J 3rd, Mjor IA. Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 2006;18(3):14454. Moncada 2006 {published data only} Moncada GC, Martin J, Fernandez E, Vildosola PG, Caamano C, Caro MJ, et al.Alternative treatments for resin-based composite and amalgam restorations with marginal defects: a 12-month clinical trial. General Dentistry 2006;54(5):3148. Moncada 2008 {published data only} Moncada G, Fernandez E, Martin J, Arancibia C, Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial. Operative Dentistry 2008;33 (3):25864. Moncada 2009 {published data only} Moncada G, Martin J, Fernandez E, Hempel MC, Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class
II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial. Journal of the American Dental Association 2009;140(4):42532.
Additional references
Burke 2004 Burke FJ. Amalgam to tooth-coloured materials--implications for clinical practice and dental education: governmental restrictions and amalgam-usage survey results. Journal of Dentistry 2004;32(5): 34350. Downer 1999 Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ. How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review. British Dental Journal 1999;187(8):4329. Frankenberger 2003 Frankenberger R, Roth S, Kramer N, Pelka M, Petschelt A. Effect of preparation mode on Class II resin composite repair. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2003;30(6):55964.
7
Higgins 2009 Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Lindberg 2005 Lindberg A. Resin Composites: Sandwich Restorations and Curing Techniques. Umea, Sweden: Umea University, 2005. Manhart 2004 Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Operative Dentistry 2004;29(5):481508. Mjor 1993 Mjor IA. Repair versus replacement of failed restorations. International Dental Journal 1993;43(5):46672. Roulet 1997 Roulet JF. Benets and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. Journal of Dentistry 1997;25(6):45973. Ryge 1980 Ryge G. Clinical criteria. International Dental Journal 1980;30(4): 34758. Ryge 1981 Ryge G, Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Mjor I. Standardization of clinical investigators for studies of restorative materials. Swedish Dental Journal 1981;5(5-6):2359. Sarrett 2005 Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dental Materials 2005; 21(1):920. Wilson 1999 Wilson NHF, Setcos JC, Brunton P. Replacement or repair of dental restorations. In: Roulet JF, Wilson NHF, Fuzzi M editor(s). Advances in Operative Dentistry: Contemporary Clinical Practice. Vol. 1, Quintessence, 1999:10515. Indicates the major publication for the study
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
Gordan 2006
No randomisation for all treatment groups, randomisation was only mentioned for allocating treatment into a replacement or no treatment group. Method of randomisation not stated. Deterioration of repaired restorations was not reported in a manner to allow differentiation between the repair materials used. Method of randomisation not stated. Deterioration of repaired restorations was not reported in a manner allow to differentiation between the repair materials used. Patients not randomised to treatment groups.
Moncada 2006
Moncada 2008
Moncada 2009
DATA AND ANALYSES

This review has no analyses.
APPENDICES Appendix 1. Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register search strategy
1. DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT 2. INLAYS 3. exp MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY) 4. (dental or tooth or molar or premolar or teeth) and (ll* or restor*) 5. DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE 6. (((defect* near restor*) or (*leak*) or (defect* near ll*) or (fail* near restor*) or (marginal adaptation) or (defect* near margin*) or (ditch*) or (crack* near ll*) or (fail* near ll*) or (crack* near restor*)) and (tooth or teeth or dental*)) 7. (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6) 8. repair* or reparat* 9. replac* 10. exp COMPOSITE RESINS 11. composite* 12. bisphenol next a-glycidyl next methylacrylate* 13. compomer* 14. (#10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13) 15. (#7 AND #8 AND #9 AND #14)
Appendix 2. CENTRAL search strategy

#1 MeSH descriptor DENTAL RESTORATION PERMANENT this term only #2 MeSH descriptor DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE this term only #3 ((dental in All Text or tooth in All Text or molar* in All Text or premolar* in All Text or teeth in All Text) and (ll* in All Text or restor* in All Text)) #4 (((defect* in All Text near/6 restor* in All Text) or leak* in All Text or (defect* in All Text near/6 ll* in All Text) or (fail* in All Text near/6 restor* in All Text) or marginal adaptation in All Text or (defect* in All Text near/6 margin* in All Text) or ditch* in All Text or (crack* in All Text near/6 ll* in All Text) or (crack* in All Text near/6 restor* in All Text) or (fail* in All Text near/6 ll* in All Text)) and (tooth in All Text or teeth in All Text or dental* in All Text)) #5 MeSH descriptor INLAYS this term only #6 MeSH descriptor MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY) this term only #7 (#1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6) #8 (repair* in All Text or reparat* in All Text) #9 replac* in All Text #10 MeSH descriptor COMPOSITE RESINS explode trees 1, 2 and 3 #11 composite* in All Text #12 bisphenol next a-glycidyl methacrylate* in All Text #13 compomer* in All Text
#14 #15
(#10 or #11 or #12 or #13) (#7 and #8 and #9 and #14)
Appendix 3. MEDLINE via OVID search strategy

1. Dental Restoration, Permanent/ 2. Inlays/ 3. exp Marginal Adaptation (Dentistry)/ 4. ((dental or tooth or molar or premolar or teeth) and (ll$ or restor$ or inlay$)).mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word] 5. Dental Restoration Failure/ 6. (((defect$ adj6 restor$) or leak$ or (defect$ adj6 ll$) or (fail$ adj6 restor$) or (marginal adj adaptation) or (defect$ adj6 margin$) or ditch$ or (crack$ adj6 ll$) or (fail$ adj6 ll$) or (crack$ adj6 restor$)) and (tooth or teeth or dental$)).mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word] 7. or/1-6 8. (repair$ or reparat$).mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word] 9. replac$.mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word] 10. exp Composite Resins/ 11. composite$.mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word] 12. bisphenol a-glycidyl methylacrylate$.mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word] 13. compomer$.mp. [mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word] 14. or/10-13 15. 7 and 8 and 9 and 14
Appendix 4. EMBASE via OVID search strategy

1. tooth lling/ 2. (inlay$ and (tooth or teeth or dental)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 3. (marginal adaptation and (teeth or tooth or dental)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 4. ((dental or tooth or molar$ or premolar$ or teeth) and (ll$ or restor$)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 5. (dental restoration adj4 fail$).mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 6. (((defect$ adj4 restor$) or leak$ or (defect$ adj4 ll$) or (fail$ adj4 restor$) or marginal adaptation or (defect$ adj4 margin$) or ditch$ or (crack$ adj4 ll$) or (crack$ adj4 restor$) or (fail$ adj4 ll$)) and (tooth or teeth or dental$)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 7. or/1-6 8. (repair$ or reparat$).mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 9. replac$.mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 10. Composite$.mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 11. bisphenol a-glycidyl methylacrylate$.mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 12. compomer$.mp. [mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name] 13. or/10-12 14. 7 and 8 and 9 and 13
Appendix 5. ISI Web of Knowledge including conference proceedings search strategy

#1 TS=(dental or tooth or molar* or premolar* or teeth) #2 TS=(ll* or restor* or inlay*) #3 #1 and #2 #4 TS=(defect* or leak* or fail* or marginal adaptation or crack*) #5 #1 and #4 #6 #3 or #5 #7 TS=(repair* or reparat* or replac*) #8 #6 and #7 #9 TI=(composite* or resin* or bisphenol a-glycidyl methylacrylate* or compomer*) # 10 #1 and #9 # 11 #10 and #8 # 12 TS=(random* or trial* or placebo* or group*) # 13 #11 and #12
Appendix 6. BIOSIS via ISI Web of Knowledge search strategy

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # 10 # 11 # 12 TS=(dental or tooth or molar* or premolar* or teeth) TS=(ll* or restor* or inlay*) #1 and #2 TS=(defect* or leak* or fail* or marginal adaptation or crack*) #1 and #4 #3 or #5 TS=(repair* or reparat* or replac*) #6 and #7 TS=(composite* or resin* or bisphenol a-glycidyl methylacrylate* or compomer*) #8 and #9 TS=(random* or trial* or placebo* or group*) #10 and #11
Appendix 7. OpenSIGLE search strategy

((resin* or composite* or compomer*) AND (dental or teeth or tooth or molar or premolar) AND (repair or replac* or restor* or reparat*))
HISTORY
Protocol rst published: Issue 2, 2006 Review rst published: Issue 2, 2010
12
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
Mohammad Owaise Sharif - organising retrieval of papers, writing to authors of papers for additional information, analysing search results, co-ordinating and writing the review. Alison Merry and Melanie Catleugh - co-ordinating and writing the protocol. Vishal Aggarwal - analysing search results. Paul Brunton - conceived review; registered contact author. Martin Tickle - conceived review. Stephen Dunne - provided general advice on the protocol.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mohammad Owaise Sharif is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) In-Practice Research Fellow. Vishal Aggarwal is supported under the terms of a Clinician Scientist Award issued by the NIHR - grant number CS/2008/08/001. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health, UK.
13

Replacement Versus Repair of Defective Restorations in Adults: Resin Composite (Review)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Replacement Versus Repair of Defective Restorations in Adults: Resin Composite (Review)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (Review)

Sharif MO, Catleugh M, Merry A, Tickle M, Dunne SM, Brunton P, Aggarwal VR

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite

Types of outcome measures

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Timing of outcome assessment

Search methods for identication of studies

Data collection and analysis

Risk of bias in included studies

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS Implications for practice

Implications for research

References to studies excluded from this review

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

DATA AND ANALYSES

Appendix 2. CENTRAL search strategy

(#10 or #11 or #12 or #13) (#7 and #8 and #9 and #14)

Appendix 3. MEDLINE via OVID search strategy

Appendix 4. EMBASE via OVID search strategy

Appendix 5. ISI Web of Knowledge including conference proceedings search strategy

Appendix 6. BIOSIS via ISI Web of Knowledge search strategy

Appendix 7. OpenSIGLE search strategy

You might also like