Abstract
Data sources
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge, Web of Science and Opengrey databases were searched. In addition researchers and experts in the field were contacted to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication.
Study selection
Randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations in adults with a defective molar restoration in a permanent molar or premolar teeth were to be considered.
Data extraction and synthesis
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified 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 followed for data synthesis.
Results
The search strategy retrieved 298 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially relevant studies were retrieved, but none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria of the review.
Conclusions
There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. Therefore there is a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled 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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Gordon VV, Riley JL, Geraldeli S, et al. Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143: 593–601.
Fernandez EM, Martin JA, Angel PA, Mjör IA, Gordan VV, Moncada GA . Survival rate of sealed, refurbished and repaired defective restorations: 4-year follow-up. Braz Dent J 2011; 22: 134–139.
Lynch CD, Blum IR, Frazier KB, Haisch LD . Wilson NH . Repair or replacement | of defective direct resin-based composite restorations: contemporary teaching in US and Canadian dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143: 157–163.
Cacho MR . Composite restorations have a higher frequency of repair compared to amalgam restorations when place in posterior permanent teeth in pediatric patients (2011) CAT no. 768: UTHSCA Dental School CAT Library.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Cochrane Oral Health Group, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Coupland 3 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. M13 9PL E-mail: cohg@manchester.ac.uk
Sharif MO, Catleugh M, Merry A et al. Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2: Art. No.: CD005971. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005971.pub3
This paper is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library 2014, issue 2 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abt, E. Defective composite restorations – repair or replace?. Evid Based Dent 15, 52–53 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401027
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401027
