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.
METHODS: A 24-item validated questionnaire including closed and open questions on the teaching of posterior composites was emailed to faculty members in all 13 Dental Schools in Malaysia. Responses were compiled on Excel and analysed.
RESULTS: All 13 dental schools responded to the survey yielding a 100 % response. All schools indicated the use of posterior composites for 2- and 3-surface cavities in premolars and molars. The didactic teaching time devoted to composites was greater than for amalgam (38 h vs 29 h). Clinically, most posterior restorations placed by students were composites (average 74.1 %, range 10 %-100 %); the remaining 25.9 % were amalgams (range, 0 %-50 %). Slot-type cavities were the preparation techniques most commonly taught (n = 11,84.6 %). The use of rubber dam for moisture control was mandatory in most schools (n = 11, 84.6 %). History of adverse reaction to composites was found to be the most common contraindication to composite placement. The phase down of teaching and use of amalgam in Malaysia is expected to occur within the next six years.
CONCLUSION: The trend to increase the teaching of posterior composites reported for other countries is confirmed by the findings from Malaysian dental schools. Notwithstanding this trend, the use of amalgam is still taught, and future studies are required to investigate the implications of the phase down of amalgam in favour of posterior composites.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Notwithstanding the increase in the teaching of posterior composites there is a pressing need to update and refine clinical guidelines for the teaching of posterior composites globally.