Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair
Welcome to the honest dentist in billings mt.
While repairs are increasingly recommended to handle partially faulty restorations, doing the fix (including bonding to various substrates) can be challenging, and dentists must adhere to established mend protocols. We aimed to assess high quality and the consequences of repair protocols.
Publication date: Available online 17 May 2019
808 documents were identified and 71 repair protocols based on 84 sources included. The number of published sources over time increased exponentially (p <0.001). Treatment steps that were recommended varied widely. Some treatment measures were just recommended by a couple of protocols, even whereas others have been always recommended (e.g. surface roughening, hydrofluoric acid etching of silicate ceramics, application of an adhesive/bonding representative ). The total quality of contained sources was medium (mean ± SD 3.7 ±0.9 out of 7 points).
(non -)systematic inspections, working instructions, and Faculties with protocols on guide composite repair restorations for partly defective (1) mix, (2) amalgam, (3) porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFMs) with exposed metal base, (4) ceramic/PFMs with exposed metal foundation, and (5) full metallic restorations were contained. Information synthesis was performed by tabulation of treatment measures and descriptive statistics. The standard of included sources was evaluated according to a checklist for guideline appraisal (MiChe).
Electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase) were hunted, hand searches with Google and Google Scholar conducted, and the reference lists of included complete texts screened and cross-referenced.
Dentists may want to adopt broadly recommended treatment steps when doing repairs of various restoration substances .
The main therapy measures were reported across repair protocols.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized
. Bookmark the permalink