SynthesisJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Clinical Decision-Making of Repair vs. Replacement of Defective Direct Dental Restorations: A Multinational Cross-Sectional Study With Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 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.
- Dentists' Knowledge and Clinical Preferences Regarding Evidence-Based Restorative Material Selection in Türkiye: Implications for Clinical Practice and Healthcare Policy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of the Chelating Agent Alendronic Acid versus EDTA on the Physicochemical Properties of Dentine.European endodontic journal · 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis web-based survey, conducted across multiple countries, sought to explore the factors that impact the decision-making of clinicians when it comes to managing defective direct restorations.
methodsA survey consisting of 14 questions was sent out to dentists in 21 countries through various online platforms. The survey consisted of two sections. The first contained five questions about demographic information, while the second involved eight clinical scenarios. In the second part, participants were tasked with deciding whether to repair or replace defective composite and amalgam restorations.
resultsThree thousand six hundred eighty dental practitioners completed the survey. For composite restorations, repair was preferred in scenarios like partial loss or fracture (RR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.89; p = 0.002), whereas replacement was favored for secondary caries (RR:2.43; 95% CI: 1.87, 3.16; p < 0.001) and open/defective margins (RR:3.93; 95% CI: 2.68, 5.76;p < 0.001). Amalgam restorations were mostly replaced across all scenarios. The main factors influencing decision-making were caries risk, restoration size, and patient oral hygiene. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across countries.
conclusionThis study underscores the complexity of the decision-making process and the need for evidence-based guidelines to inform clinicians' decisions regarding restoration management. Patient-level factors predominantly influence decision-making, emphasizing the need for individualized approaches. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The study reveals that the material type in the original restoration is a critical determinant, with composite restorations being repaired in specific scenarios, while amalgam restorations are consistently replaced across different countries. Key patient and tooth-level factors, such as high caries risk, poor oral hygiene, and restoration size, significantly impact clinicians' decisions, often favoring replacement over repair. These findings underscore the necessity for evidence-based guidelines to assist clinicians in making informed choices, ultimately enhancing the quality of patient care.
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.