Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair

Abstract

Objectives: While repairs are increasingly recommended to manage partially defective restorations, performing the repair (including bonding to different substrates) can be challenging, and dentists should adhere to established repair protocols. We aimed to systematically assess the consistency and quality of repair protocols. Data: 808 records were initially identified and 71 repair protocols based on 84 sources included. The number of published sources over time increased exponentially (p < 0.001). Recommended treatment steps varied widely. Some treatment steps were only recommended by a minority of protocols, while others were consistently recommended (e.g. surface roughening, hydrofluoric acid etching of silicate ceramics, application of an adhesive/bonding agent). The overall quality of included sources was moderate (mean ± SD 3.7 ± 0.9 out of 7 points). Sources: Electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase) were searched, hand searches using Google and Google Scholar conducted, and the reference lists of included full texts screened and cross-referenced. Study selection: (Non-)systematic reviews, working instructions, and textbooks with protocols on direct composite repair restorations for partially defective (1) composite, (2) amalgam, (3) porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFMs) with exposed metal base, (4) ceramic/PFMs without exposed metal base, and (5) full metal restorations were included. Data synthesis was performed by tabulation of recommended treatment steps and descriptive statistics. The quality of included sources was assessed based on a checklist for guideline appraisal (MiChe). Conclusions: The main treatment steps were consistently reported across repair protocols. Clinical significance: Dentists may want to adopt widely recommended treatment steps when performing repairs of different restoration materials in their daily practice.