METHOD: An 11-question survey was distributed to dentists across 21 countries via different platforms. The survey comprised two sections: the first included five questions aimed at gathering demographic information, while the second consisted of six questions focusing on participants' practices related to the repair of composite or amalgam restorations A meta-analysis was employed to ascertain the pooled odds ratio of repairing versus replacement. The statistical analysis was carried out using the RevMan 5.3 program and forest plots were generated using the same program to visualize the results.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 3680 dental practitioners. The results indicated a strong tendency to repair defective composite restorations (OR: 14.23; 95 % CI: 7.40, 27.35, p < 0.001). In terms of amalgam, there was a significant tendency to replace the restorations (OR: 0.19; 95 % CI: 0.12, 0.30, p < 0.001). When repairing restorations, the most common protocols were etching with orthophosphoric acid and creating an enamel bevel, regardless of the restorative material used.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that there exists a knowledge gap among dental practitioners regarding restoration repair. It is imperative that dental practitioners receive proper education and training on restoration repair, to ensure the usage of adequate protocols and restoration survival.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A significant portion of dental practitioners lack the necessary knowledge and education required for the repair of restorations. Therefore, it is imperative to establish guidelines aimed at enhancing the management of defective restorations, along with protocols for clinical interventions. This includes the incorporation of proper courses in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education programs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven cephalometric variables (facial angle, ANB, maxillary depth, U1/FH, FMA, IMPA, FMIA) were measured by a dentist in 60 Malay subjects (30 males and 30 females) with class I occlusion and balanced face. Two standard images were taken for each subject with conventional cephalometric radiography and MicroScribe-3DXL. All the images were traced and analysed. SPSS version 2.0 was used for statistical analysis with P-value was set at P<0.05.
RESULTS: The results revealed a significant statistic difference in four measurements (U1/FH, FMA, IMPA, FMIA) with P-value range (0.00 to 0.03). The difference in the measurements was considered clinically acceptable. The overall reliability of MicroScribe-3DXL was 92.7% and its validity was 91.8%.
CONCLUSION: The MicroScribe-3DXL is reliable and valid to most of the cephalometric variables with the advantages of saving time and cost. This is a promising device to assist in diverse areas in dental practice and research.