Cargando…

Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Defective dental restorations are amongst the most common encounters in general dental practice. Replacement of defective restorations is often costly and commonly results in the sacrifice of sound tooth structure, thereby compromising the vitality of the dental pulp, potentially...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blum, Igor Robert, Özcan, Mutlu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6244566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30524930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40496-018-0191-1
_version_ 1783372081087381504
author Blum, Igor Robert
Özcan, Mutlu
author_facet Blum, Igor Robert
Özcan, Mutlu
author_sort Blum, Igor Robert
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Defective dental restorations are amongst the most common encounters in general dental practice. Replacement of defective restorations is often costly and commonly results in the sacrifice of sound tooth structure, thereby compromising the vitality of the dental pulp, potentially resulting in the acceleration of the restoration cycle and premature loss of the restored tooth. With advances in adhesive dentistry, ‘reparative dentistry’ is becoming an important area of minimally invasive dentistry. This article highlights the detrimental biological effects of restoration replacement and provides an overview of current knowledge and understanding of restoration repair as a safe and effective alternative approach to replacement. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature reviewed showed that a growing body of evidence from clinical studies indicates that repaired restorations have similar survival outcomes in patients with low and medium caries risk compared to replaced restorations and are clinically acceptable over a 12-year follow-up of clinical service. Teeth with repaired restorations are less likely to require aggressive interventions such as endodontic treatment or extraction compared to those with replaced restorations. SUMMARY: Repair options should be carried out wherever possible as minimally interventional procedures in order to increase the longevity of the remaining part of the restoration and the restored tooth unit. Restoration replacement should be considered as the last resort when there are no other viable alternatives.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6244566
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62445662018-12-04 Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations Blum, Igor Robert Özcan, Mutlu Curr Oral Health Rep Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan, Section Editor) PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Defective dental restorations are amongst the most common encounters in general dental practice. Replacement of defective restorations is often costly and commonly results in the sacrifice of sound tooth structure, thereby compromising the vitality of the dental pulp, potentially resulting in the acceleration of the restoration cycle and premature loss of the restored tooth. With advances in adhesive dentistry, ‘reparative dentistry’ is becoming an important area of minimally invasive dentistry. This article highlights the detrimental biological effects of restoration replacement and provides an overview of current knowledge and understanding of restoration repair as a safe and effective alternative approach to replacement. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature reviewed showed that a growing body of evidence from clinical studies indicates that repaired restorations have similar survival outcomes in patients with low and medium caries risk compared to replaced restorations and are clinically acceptable over a 12-year follow-up of clinical service. Teeth with repaired restorations are less likely to require aggressive interventions such as endodontic treatment or extraction compared to those with replaced restorations. SUMMARY: Repair options should be carried out wherever possible as minimally interventional procedures in order to increase the longevity of the remaining part of the restoration and the restored tooth unit. Restoration replacement should be considered as the last resort when there are no other viable alternatives. Springer International Publishing 2018-09-15 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6244566/ /pubmed/30524930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40496-018-0191-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan, Section Editor)
Blum, Igor Robert
Özcan, Mutlu
Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations
title Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations
title_full Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations
title_fullStr Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations
title_full_unstemmed Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations
title_short Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations
title_sort reparative dentistry: possibilities and limitations
topic Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan, Section Editor)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6244566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30524930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40496-018-0191-1
work_keys_str_mv AT blumigorrobert reparativedentistrypossibilitiesandlimitations
AT ozcanmutlu reparativedentistrypossibilitiesandlimitations