ReviewPeerJ2024
Repair protocols for indirect monolithic restorations: a literature review.
Review in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repair Performance of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured Permanent Crown Materials: A Combined Mechanical and Optical Evaluation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Managing Fractured Ceramic Restorations: Current Evidence and Best Practices-A Scoping Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Comparison of post-treatment complications of conventional composites versus self-adhering composites: a review.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the advancements in indirect monolithic restorations, technical complications may occur during function. To overcome this issues, intraoral repair using resin composite is a practical and low-cost procedure, being able to increase the restoration's longevity. This review aimed to evaluate the need for repair and suggest a standardized repair protocol to the main indirect restorative materials. For this, studies were surveyed from PubMed with no language or date restriction, to investigate the scientific evidence of indirect monolithic restoration repair with direct resin composite. A classification to guide clinical decisions was made based on the FDI World Dental Federation criteria about defective indirect restorations considering esthetic and functional standards, along with the patient's view, to decide when polishing, repairing or replacing a defective restoration. Based on 38 surveyed studies, different resin composite intraoral repair protocols, that included mechanical and chemical aspects, were defined depending on the substrate considering resin-based, glass-ceramic or zirconia restorations. The presented criteria and protocols were developed to guide the clinician's decision-making process regarding defective indirect monolithic restorations, prolonging longevity and increasing clinical success.
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.