An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations.

AIM: Surveys on reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations have been conducted in various countries. The purpose of this paper is to bring together and review the data of 10 such surveys with similar methodology. METHOD: The studies reviewed are all based on the protocol described by Mjör in 1981. RESULTS: The surveys reviewed provide data on the reasons for the placement and replacement of a total of 32,777 restorations. Notwithstanding differences between countries, different groups of practitioners and minor variations in methodology, the data included in the selected surveys indicate that everyday clinical practice in Scandinavia, UK and USA during the 1980s and 1990s has involved more replacement than initial restorations, with the ratio of initial to replacement restorations ranging from 1:1.1 to 1:2.4 for amalgam and 1:1.1 to 1:3.8 for composite materials. Primary caries has been consistently found to be the principal reason for the provision of initial restorations of amalgam and composite. The principal reason for the replacement of restorations of amalgam and composite has remained secondary caries as diagnosed clinically. Material failures (marginal degradation, discoloration, bulk fracture and loss of anatomic form) accounted for the replacement of more restorations of composite than amalgam. Recent surveys have reported secondary caries as the principal cause of failure of restorations of glass-ionomer cements and related materials. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical diagnoses of caries may continue to be found to account for the placement and replacement of most intracoronal restorations. Surveys of the type reviewed provide valuable insight into patterns of provision of dental care and highlight research priorities in relation to direct restorations.

Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations in student clinics in Manchester and Athens.

Data on reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provide insight into patterns of clinical practice. This study investigated reasons for the provision of restorations in student clinics at the Universities of Manchester and Athens. Using the methods first described by Mjör, data were collected in relation to all initial and replacement restorations placed in adult patients in the main teaching clinics in the 2 schools over a 3-month period. The principal reason for intervention was recorded, according to approved treatment plans. Data were collected on 2620 restorations, 1431 (55%) of which were placed in Manchester. Primary caries was the main reason for the placement of initial restorations: 82% in Athens and 48% in Manchester (p<0.001). The principal reason for restoration replacement was secondary caries, accounting for 54% in Manchester and 33% in Athens (p<0.001). Other differences between the schools, included the ratio of initial placement to replacement restorations (Manchester 1:1.1; Athens 1:0.6: p<0.01) and significantly more 2-surface class II restorations having been placed in Manchester (p<0.001). Class III and IV restorations predominated in Athens. It is concluded, despite the acknowledged limitations of the methods employed, that the patterns of placement and replacement of restorations and the use of materials differ between the dental schools of Manchester and Athens. The differences are considered to relate more to local patterns of dental disease and patient selection for student clinics than to any differences in teaching philosophy. Subsequent studies of the type reported, despite acknowledged limitations would provide insight into the impact on patient care of the teaching of new materials, techniques and treatment philosophies.