Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite.

BACKGROUND

Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth-coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any filling material composites have a finite life-span. Traditionally, replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective composite restorations, however, repairing composites offers an alternative more conservative approach to the tooth structure 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 effects of replacing (with resin composite) versus repair (with resin composite) in the management of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 24 July 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 24 July 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 24 July 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 24 July 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 24 July 2013); and OpenGrey (to 24 July 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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 to be followed for data synthesis.

MAIN 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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore 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.