Open AccessDental Composite Restorations Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Author(s) -
Abdulmohsen Al Rabiah,
Alamri Zahrah,
Malath Tuwaym,
Al Daghri Ebtihal,
Al Suhaibani Daniyah,
Al Qahtani Abdullah
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of pharmaceutical research international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2456-9119
DOI - 10.9734/jpri/2021/v33i59a34322
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , randomized controlled trial , medline , systematic review , dentistry , cohort study , resin composite , clinical trial , data extraction , physical therapy , surgery , composite number , computer science , algorithm , political science , law
Background: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the most optimal repair procedure for improving the adhesion between the repair resin and the existing resin composite materials. Hence the aim of the present study was to do a systematic review and to analyze the adhesion potential of resin-based composites to similar and dissimilar composites and aimed to determine the possible dominant factors affecting the bond strength results.
Materials & Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort design were searched through electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) until July 2020 that compared different methods of composite restoration repair and a minimum mean follow-up time of 1 year. There were no restrictions on a particular treatment indication or outcome measures. Two authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We applied the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to consider the risk of bias.
Results: We identified 10 articles; two of them were RCTs, and eight prospective cohort studies. There were 530 participants, with 990 teeth, dealing with resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. The intervention of defective restorations ranged from minimal intervention to total restoration replacement. The evaluation criteria were also varied with different evaluation protocols. The low number and heterogeneity of RCTs did not allow for meta-analyses.
Conclusions: Although different repair protocols are mentioned in the literature according to the included studies, an appropriate and definitive conclusion can't be drawn. However, it seems repairs versus replacements should be considered as the first line of treatment when all factors lead to repair rather than replacement. Further randomized controlled trials with high methodological quality need to be conducted in order to establish evidence-based recommendations, particularly for RBC repair.