ArticleAustralian dental journal2025
The current attitudes and practices of dentists in Australia towards composite repair: A cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Australian dental journal, 2025. 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.
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Orthodontic Retention Practices and Opinions Among General Dental Practitioners in Australia.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Adoption of minimally invasive dentistry in Palestine: assessing practices and barriers - a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The Effect of Chemical Surface Modification on the Repair Bond Strength of Resin Composite: An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether to replace or repair a composite restoration is controversial and varies among clinicians. This study was designed to collect information on the attitudes and practices of Australian dentists towards composite repair.
methodsAn electronic 16-item questionnaire was distributed online on Australian clinicians' dental forum with a URL address and instructions on completing the survey. The questionnaire remained accessible for 2 months. The data collected were analysed statistically using descriptive, average rank, Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests at α = 0.05.
resultsRepair of composite restorations was a widely accepted treatment modality among surveyed dentists. Despite this, approximately half of clinicians reported the prognosis of repaired restorations to be worse when compared to replacement. The most cited indications for repair were partial loss or fracture of the restoration, while the most common reason for repair was because this treatment modality was more conservative in terms of tooth structure removal. Most important patient factor influencing decision to repair composite restoration was caries risk of the patient (n = 50). Most significant situational factor to consider in decision whether to repair was previous (failed) attempts to repair (n = 74). The most important tooth level factor was the proximity of restoration to pulp (mean statistic rank 2.22). The most common composite surface treatment employed by participants bonding to old composite was acid etching (n = 87), and the main reason participants employed their chosen surface treatment was based on personal experience (n = 72).
conclusionThe repair of composite restorations was a commonly performed procedure that is well accepted but may still be viewed as an inferior treatment to replacement by many Australian dentists. Most dentists agreed on indications for repair restorations and surface conditioning techniques, but there was wide variation in opinions overall. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence regarding composite repair techniques, dentists tend to rely on personal experience to guide their clinical decisions.
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.