ArticleInternational dental journal2017
Attitudes of Greek dentists towards repair of conservative restorations. An online survey.
Article in International dental journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adoption of minimally invasive dentistry in Palestine: assessing practices and barriers - a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The current attitudes and practices of dentists in Australia towards composite repair: A cross-sectional survey study.Australian dental journal · 2025Article
- Awareness of Students and Dentists on Sustainability Issues, Safety of Use and Disposal of Dental Amalgam.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- EVIDENCE-PRACTICE GAP IN TREATMENT DECISIONS ABOUT DEFECTIVE COMPOSITE AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS AMONG BRAZILIAN DENTISTS.Brazilian journal of oral sciences · 2023Article
- Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations.Current oral health reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRepair versus replacement of a defective direct restoration is one important step for conserving tooth structure. This study was designed to collect information on the attitudes of Greek dentists towards repairing direct restorations.
methodsAn electronic questionnaire with 16 multiple-choice and rank-ordering questions was created online and its URL address was randomly emailed to 800 dentists in the area of Athens, Greece. The questionnaire remained open for 3 months, and after two reminder emails the data collected were analysed statistically to identify differences between clinician's sex or years of practicing dentistry, using the chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests at α = 0.05.
resultsThree-hundred and twenty dentists completed and submitted the questionnaire (response rate = 40%). A high proportion (86.8%) of the respondents reported that they routinely repair defective restorations, ranking the order of their frequency as 2.47 for amalgam and 2.41 for resin restorations. The reasons, with the highest ranks, for repairing amalgams were the restoration of bulk fractures (4.10) and restoration of marginal fractures (3.69). For repair of resin restorations, the reasons with the highest ranks were improving their colour (4.04) and removing marginal discoloration (3.99). Moreover, 94.1% of the respondents stated that they were enough, much and very much satisfied with the repair, 1 year after it was performed.
conclusionsA high percentage of Greek dentists are repairing defective direct restorations. There are discrepancies in the indications, techniques and materials used for repairs, such as bulk fractures and marginal restorations. Further studies on the efficacy of repairs, the criteria and procedure protocols are needed. Further, additional clinical education should be offered at the undergraduate or continuing education levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.