IADR Abstract Archives
Repair vs. Replacement of Direct Composite Restorations: A Survey of Teaching Programs in Oceania
Objectives: The repair of defective direct composite restorations (DCRs) is a viable alternative to replacement; however, criteria and guidelines for this procedure are sparse. This study aimed to evaluate the teaching of operative techniques for the repair and/or replacement of DCRs in dental schools in Oceania.
Methods: A validated 14-item questionnaire was mailed to the heads of operative dentistry in 16 dental schools in Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea). The questionnaire asked whether the repair of DCRs was taught within the curriculum, the rationale behind teaching, how techniques were taught, indications for repair, operative techniques, materials used, patient acceptability, expected longevity and what recall systems were in place.
Results: All 16 schools participated in the study. Thirteen (81%) reported the teaching of repair as an alternative to replacement. Of these schools, most taught the theoretical and practical aspects of composite repair at a clinical level only. All 13 schools (100%) agreed on preservation of tooth structure being the main reason for teaching. The main indications for repair were marginal defects (100%, n=13), followed by secondary caries (69%, n=9). All 13 schools that performed repairs reported that patients accepted this alternative, and considered it a definitive measure. The use of instruments, surface treatment and materials used varied among schools. Only 3 schools (23%) had a recall system in place following repair of DCRs. 46% of the respondents (n=6) either did not know or did not answer when asked about longevity of DCRs. Those who did suggested it to be around 50%.
Conclusions: Repair of DCRs seems to be a viable alternative to replacement, which is actively taught within Oceania. Advantages include it being minimally invasive, preserving tooth structure, and it being a more economical treatment. However, standardised guidelines need to be developed and further clinical long-term studies need to be carried out.
Methods: A validated 14-item questionnaire was mailed to the heads of operative dentistry in 16 dental schools in Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea). The questionnaire asked whether the repair of DCRs was taught within the curriculum, the rationale behind teaching, how techniques were taught, indications for repair, operative techniques, materials used, patient acceptability, expected longevity and what recall systems were in place.
Results: All 16 schools participated in the study. Thirteen (81%) reported the teaching of repair as an alternative to replacement. Of these schools, most taught the theoretical and practical aspects of composite repair at a clinical level only. All 13 schools (100%) agreed on preservation of tooth structure being the main reason for teaching. The main indications for repair were marginal defects (100%, n=13), followed by secondary caries (69%, n=9). All 13 schools that performed repairs reported that patients accepted this alternative, and considered it a definitive measure. The use of instruments, surface treatment and materials used varied among schools. Only 3 schools (23%) had a recall system in place following repair of DCRs. 46% of the respondents (n=6) either did not know or did not answer when asked about longevity of DCRs. Those who did suggested it to be around 50%.
Conclusions: Repair of DCRs seems to be a viable alternative to replacement, which is actively taught within Oceania. Advantages include it being minimally invasive, preserving tooth structure, and it being a more economical treatment. However, standardised guidelines need to be developed and further clinical long-term studies need to be carried out.