Repair or replacement of restorations: do we accept built in obsolescence or do we improve the evidence?

Access to files

Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Full-text is available externally using the following links:

Abstract

Introduction Controversy surrounds decisions on whether to repair or replace defective dental restorations. The concept of built-in obsolescence, ie periodic replacement of dental restorations, is largely accepted as the modus operandi if not the default mode in restorative care. In this article we examine the current best available evidence underpinning the effectiveness of replacement versus repair of direct amalgam and resin composite restorations.Method This article builds on two recent Cochrane systematic reviews which have reported on the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of replacement versus repair of amalgam and direct resin composites and translates the results of their research conclusions into recommendations for the dental clinician.Results As no relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified in either of these systematic reviews, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of repair versus replacement of amalgam and composite restorations is weak and incomplete. The evidence as it currently stands seems to favour repair over replacement, but this is insufficient to make firm recommendations.Conclusion In view of the absence of high level evidence there is a need for further well designed RCTs. To add value to the evidence base these trials should be conducted in a general practice setting which will strengthen the generalisability and applicability of the research conclusions and enable dentists and patients to make informed decisions.

Bibliographic metadata

Institutional metadata

Record metadata