Non-Cochrane · other · PM39487728
Clinical Decision-Making of Repair vs. Replacement of Defective Direct Dental Restorations: A Multinational Cross-Sectional Study With Meta-Analysis.
Hatipoğlu Ömer, Martins João Filipe Brochado, Karobari Mohmed Isaqali, et al. · Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025 · PubMed · doi:10.1111/jerd.13321
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
176
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
21
as reported
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 176 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | General dentists and specialists in endodontics, pediatric dentistry, prosthodontics, and restorative dentistry (including specialty trainees) who perform direct restorations; maxillofacial surgeons, radiologists, orthodontists, and periodontists excluded | 3680 dental practitioners from 21 countries (mean age 34.3 years; 60.1% female; 58% general dentists); highest participation Croatia (208), lowest Singapore and Egypt (165 each) |
| Intervention | Replacement of the defective direct restoration | Replacement |
| Comparison | Repair of the defective direct restoration | Repair |
| Outcomes | Clinician's preferred management (repair, replacement, or no intervention) across 8 standardized defect scenarios, separately for composite and amalgam restorations; factors prompting a shift from repair to replacement | Composite: repair preferred for partial loss/fracture (RR 0.72), loss of adjacent hard tissue (0.75), superficial discoloration (0.28), and disruption of occlusal integrity (0.37); replacement preferred for secondary caries (2.43), marginal discoloration (1.97), open margin (3.93), and non-stable restoration (12.17). Amalgam: replacement preferred in all 8 scenarios (RR 1.59 to 24.22). Top factors shifting toward replacement: high caries risk (73.3%), loss of more than half the restoration (62.0%), poor oral hygiene (59.2%) |
| Study designs | Cross-sectional web-based questionnaire (14 items) across 21 countries; country-level data meta-analyzed with a random-effects model (risk ratio; RevMan 5.3 / Jamovi 2.3.26) | 21 countries pooled with a random-effects model; substantial between-country heterogeneity (I2 > 92% for composite; I2 > 84% for amalgam) |
| Timing | Single time-point (survey administered June to October 2023) | Data collected June to October 2023 |
Search date: Not applicable (primary multinational survey; data collected June to October 2023, no bibliographic database search). Databases: Not applicable (primary survey; questionnaire distributed via country-specific dental associations, professional networks (ResearchGate, Academia.edu), email, and social media)
Questions and results
Replacement of the defective restoration vs Repair of the defective restoration
Population: Dentists managing a defective direct resin composite restoration (posterior occlusal Class I; standardized vignette of a 30-year-old, low-caries-risk patient)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with secondary caries, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 2.43; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 3) · same question in other reviews | RR 2.43 [1.87, 3.16] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration, surveyed dentists most often preferred repair over replacement (pooled RR 0.72; p = 0.002); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 1) · same question in other reviews | RR 0.72 [0.58, 0.89] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with disruption of occlusal integrity, surveyed dentists most often preferred repair over replacement (pooled RR 0.37; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 8) · same question in other reviews | RR 0.37 [0.29, 0.48] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: Africa Subgroup (Continent: Africa): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective composite restoration with secondary caries (RR 4.62); significant continental variation, p < 0.001. Source: Table 2 (Scenario 3, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p < 0.001 · same question in other reviews | RR 4.62 [3.64, 5.86] | 2 studies · 339 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with marginal discoloration, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 1.97; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 4) · same question in other reviews | RR 1.97 [1.55, 2.49] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with open margin, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 3.93; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 5) · same question in other reviews | RR 3.93 [2.68, 5.76] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: Europe Subgroup (Continent: Europe): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective composite restoration with secondary caries (RR 3.07); significant continental variation, p < 0.001. Source: Table 2 (Scenario 3, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p < 0.001 · same question in other reviews | RR 3.07 [2.41, 3.89] | 6 studies · 1075 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration, surveyed dentists most often preferred repair over replacement (pooled RR 0.75; p = 0.004); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 2) · same question in other reviews | RR 0.75 [0.62, 0.91] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: South America Subgroup (Continent: South America): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective composite restoration with secondary caries (RR 1.33); significant continental variation, p < 0.001. Source: Table 2 (Scenario 3, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p < 0.001 · same question in other reviews | RR 1.33 [1.03, 1.71] | 2 studies · 349 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: Asia Subgroup (Continent: Asia): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective composite restoration with secondary caries (RR 2.13); significant continental variation, p < 0.001. Source: Table 2 (Scenario 3, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p < 0.001 · same question in other reviews | RR 2.13 [1.40, 3.24] | 11 studies · 1917 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with superficial discoloration, surveyed dentists most often preferred repair over replacement (pooled RR 0.28; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 6) · same question in other reviews | RR 0.28 [0.20, 0.38] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective composite restoration with non-stable (mobile) restoration, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 12.17; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 2 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 7) · same question in other reviews | RR 12.17 [8.17, 18.11] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Replacement of the defective restoration vs Repair of the defective restoration
Population: Dentists managing a defective direct amalgam restoration (posterior occlusal Class I; standardized vignette of a 30-year-old, low-caries-risk patient)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with disruption of occlusal integrity, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 1.70; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 8) · same question in other reviews | RR 1.70 [1.37, 2.10] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: Europe Subgroup (Continent: Europe): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 2.61); significant continental variation, p = 0.04. Source: Table 3 (Scenario 1, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p = 0.04 · same question in other reviews | RR 2.61 [1.54, 4.42] | 6 studies · 1075 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 4.70; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 2) · same question in other reviews | RR 4.70 [3.59, 6.16] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with corrosion, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 1.59; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 6) · same question in other reviews | RR 1.59 [1.24, 2.03] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: Very high Subgroup (HDI: Very high): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with marginal discoloration (RR 6.48); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 4, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 6.48 [3.71, 11.31] | 10 studies · 1754 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: High Subgroup (HDI: High): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 5.06); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 1, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 5.06 [4.22, 6.06] | 7 studies · 1223 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with open margin, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 5.14; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 5) · same question in other reviews | RR 5.14 [4.02, 6.57] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: Asia Subgroup (Continent: Asia): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 4.38); significant continental variation, p = 0.04. Source: Table 3 (Scenario 1, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p = 0.04 · same question in other reviews | RR 4.38 [2.91, 6.61] | 11 studies · 1917 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: High Subgroup (HDI: High): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with marginal discoloration (RR 7.06); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 4, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 7.06 [5.14, 9.69] | 7 studies · 1223 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: Africa Subgroup (Continent: Africa): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 4.86); significant continental variation, p = 0.04. Source: Table 3 (Scenario 1, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p = 0.04 · same question in other reviews | RR 4.86 [3.79, 6.23] | 2 studies · 339 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Continent: South America Subgroup (Continent: South America): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 6.20); significant continental variation, p = 0.04. Source: Table 3 (Scenario 1, continent subtotals); test for subgroup differences p = 0.04 · same question in other reviews | RR 6.20 [4.66, 8.25] | 2 studies · 349 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: Low Subgroup (HDI: Low): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 3.39); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 1, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 3.39 [2.18, 5.27] | 2 studies · 350 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with secondary caries, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 6.94; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 3) · same question in other reviews | RR 6.94 [5.53, 8.71] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 3.94; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 1) · same question in other reviews | RR 3.94 [2.93, 5.31] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: Low Subgroup (HDI: Low): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with marginal discoloration (RR 3.58); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 4, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 3.58 [2.74, 4.69] | 2 studies · 350 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with marginal discoloration, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 6.04; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 4) · same question in other reviews | RR 6.04 [4.51, 8.08] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: Medium Subgroup (HDI: Medium): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 7.13); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 1, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 7.13 [4.90, 10.35] | 2 studies · 353 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: Medium Subgroup (HDI: Medium): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with marginal discoloration (RR 5.19); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 4, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 5.19 [3.61, 7.45] | 2 studies · 353 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · HDI: Very high Subgroup (HDI: Very high): pooled preference was replacement over repair for a defective amalgam restoration with partial loss or fracture of the restoration (RR 2.99); significant HDI variation, p = 0.01. Source: Table 4 (Amalgam, Scenario 1, HDI columns); HDI subgroup difference p = 0.01 · same question in other reviews | RR 2.99 [1.91, 4.67] | 10 studies · 1754 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Not applicable (single time-point survey, June to October 2023) · Overall (all 21 countries pooled) For a defective amalgam restoration with non-stable (mobile) restoration, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 24.22; p < 0.001); ungraded. Source: Figure 3 (forest plot, overall diamond); Table 3 (Total [95% CI] row, Scenario 7) · same question in other reviews | RR 24.22 [13.05, 44.95] | 21 studies · 3680 participants | Ungraded |
Comparison
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 6.25 [4.50, 8.66] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Coverage: Not covering | RR 1.67 [1.20, 2.30] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Continent: Europe | RR 0.59 [0.38, 0.90] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion HDI: Medium | RR 1.39 [0.41, 4.68] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: Europe | RR 4.79 [2.98, 7.69] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 0.33 [0.22, 0.50] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration HDI: Low | RR 0.22 [0.08, 0.59] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 0.70 [0.60, 0.82] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration Coverage: Not covering | RR 0.29 [0.18, 0.45] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration Continent: Asia | RR 0.30 [0.18, 0.50] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: South America | RR 0.91 [0.54, 1.54] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: Africa | RR 2.88 [2.31, 3.58] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Coverage: Not covering | RR 5.26 [3.58, 7.71] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Continent: Africa | RR 11.43 [7.88, 16.56] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: Europe | RR 47.19 [16.50, 134.95] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: Europe | RR 33.41 [10.33, 108.04] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: Very high | RR 0.40 [0.27, 0.59] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration Continent: Africa | RR 0.31 [0.18, 0.51] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: Low | RR 25.94 [1.88, 358.26] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: Very high | RR 1.87 [1.32, 2.64] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: Very high | RR 6.56 [4.37, 9.86] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: Europe | RR 0.32 [0.27, 0.37] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: Medium | RR 0.70 [0.05, 10.26] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 0.26 [0.16, 0.41] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: Asia | RR 5.71 [3.51, 9.28] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: Very high | RR 19.06 [7.76, 46.80] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 34.41 [16.26, 72.86] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: Africa | RR 1.57 [1.31, 1.87] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: Africa | RR 7.59 [3.13, 18.38] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: Low | RR 1.47 [0.87, 2.48] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: South America | RR 8.17 [2.20, 30.35] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: Asia | RR 2.14 [1.47, 3.10] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: Asia | RR 0.38 [0.26, 0.56] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: South America | RR 5.15 [3.98, 6.66] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 4.09 [2.77, 6.04] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion Coverage: Not covering | RR 1.54 [1.12, 2.12] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: Low | RR 2.45 [1.73, 3.48] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: Low | RR 5.34 [1.88, 15.19] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Coverage: Not covering | RR 3.85 [2.51, 5.93] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Continent: Africa | RR 0.86 [0.74, 1.00] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: Very high | RR 0.70 [0.49, 1.00] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Coverage: Not covering | RR 4.05 [2.84, 5.78] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: Asia | RR 5.16 [3.50, 7.61] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: South America | RR 24.53 [6.02, 99.91] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: High | RR 4.99 [3.14, 7.93] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion HDI: High | RR 1.91 [1.34, 2.73] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 14.46 [7.75, 26.98] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 0.90 [0.74, 1.10] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: Africa | RR 0.43 [0.36, 0.52] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: Africa | RR 0.93 [0.68, 1.27] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Continent: Asia | RR 6.51 [4.64, 9.13] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: Low | RR 1.36 [0.15, 12.30] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion Continent: Africa | RR 1.60 [1.22, 2.10] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: Low | RR 6.16 [4.45, 8.52] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Coverage: Not covering | RR 6.64 [4.83, 9.11] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: Medium | RR 3.49 [1.30, 9.36] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: Very high | RR 5.19 [3.39, 7.94] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: Asia | RR 1.50 [1.08, 2.08] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Continent: Asia | RR 0.78 [0.56, 1.10] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 5.97 [4.09, 8.70] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: High | RR 11.31 [6.70, 19.08] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: Medium | RR 1.90 [0.78, 4.64] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: High | RR 1.85 [1.43, 2.39] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration HDI: Medium | RR 2.01 [0.98, 4.09] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Coverage: Not covering | RR 18.78 [8.63, 40.89] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration HDI: High | RR 0.79 [0.70, 0.88] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: Africa | RR 7.37 [3.51, 15.46] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: High | RR 2.54 [1.69, 3.81] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: Europe | RR 1.66 [1.09, 2.54] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: High | RR 0.85 [0.72, 1.00] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration HDI: High | RR 0.30 [0.19, 0.46] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Coverage: Not covering | RR 5.93 [3.86, 9.13] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: Medium | RR 0.31 [0.08, 1.13] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: Very high | RR 30.92 [8.85, 108.02] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: Africa | RR 6.31 [4.73, 8.42] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: South America | RR 2.59 [1.59, 4.22] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 3.09 [1.65, 5.79] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Coverage: Not covering | RR 10.96 [6.53, 18.39] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 1.76 [1.38, 2.24] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Continent: South America | RR 0.70 [0.60, 0.81] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 7.47 [5.63, 9.93] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: Low | RR 0.27 [0.22, 0.34] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: High | RR 8.20 [6.93, 9.70] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: South America | RR 0.46 [0.09, 2.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: Africa | RR 14.98 [4.84, 46.32] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Coverage: Not covering | RR 0.66 [0.49, 0.90] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: High | RR 6.46 [5.43, 7.68] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration HDI: High | RR 2.55 [1.79, 3.62] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: Low | RR 3.87 [2.18, 6.86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 2.00 [1.25, 3.20] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: Medium | RR 0.40 [0.08, 2.03] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: Medium | RR 2.42 [0.37, 15.80] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: Very high | RR 2.98 [2.23, 3.98] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration HDI: Very high | RR 0.79 [0.53, 1.18] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: Low | RR 8.50 [6.23, 11.61] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: Medium | RR 7.07 [5.33, 9.38] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion HDI: Low | RR 1.09 [0.86, 1.38] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries HDI: Medium | RR 5.73 [2.83, 11.57] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 4.98 [4.07, 6.09] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: Very high | RR 4.07 [2.85, 5.81] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration HDI: Low | RR 1.12 [0.68, 1.86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Coverage: Not covering | RR 2.53 [1.70, 3.78] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration HDI: Low | RR 0.75 [0.64, 0.87] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: Asia | RR 3.71 [2.01, 6.82] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration HDI: Medium | RR 0.34 [0.24, 0.49] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion Continent: Asia | RR 1.69 [1.12, 2.55] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion Continent: Europe | RR 1.28 [0.91, 1.81] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration HDI: Very high | RR 1.82 [1.34, 2.46] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: Europe | RR 6.88 [4.77, 9.92] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: South America | RR 1.44 [0.71, 2.91] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: Asia | RR 8.67 [5.32, 14.13] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: High | RR 0.39 [0.26, 0.58] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 2.28 [1.69, 3.08] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: High | RR 6.16 [5.32, 7.14] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: South America | RR 2.12 [0.66, 6.82] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration HDI: Medium | RR 0.29 [0.07, 1.21] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity HDI: Medium | RR 0.88 [0.14, 5.56] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Continent: South America | RR 7.62 [5.59, 10.38] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: Medium | RR 12.93 [8.77, 19.05] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: Asia | RR 18.59 [7.66, 45.10] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Continent: South America | RR 4.71 [2.97, 7.49] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion Coverage: Covering cost of minimally invasive treatment | RR 1.66 [1.11, 2.49] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: South America | RR 7.54 [3.41, 16.67] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: Europe | RR 4.04 [2.03, 8.06] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Continent: Europe | RR 2.03 [1.35, 3.04] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion HDI: Very high | RR 1.54 [1.03, 2.32] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Continent: Africa | RR 6.44 [4.85, 8.56] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: Europe | RR 3.53 [2.36, 5.30] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin HDI: Very high | RR 4.75 [2.78, 8.11] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 8: disruption of occlusal integrity Coverage: Not covering | RR 0.40 [0.30, 0.55] | NR | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration HDI: Very high | RR 0.26 [0.14, 0.49] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration Continent: South America | RR 0.44 [0.15, 1.29] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration HDI: Low | RR 1.17 [0.35, 3.87] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 4: marginal discoloration Coverage: Not covering | RR 1.95 [1.50, 2.54] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration HDI: High | RR 22.43 [12.83, 39.24] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: Europe | RR 0.59 [0.39, 0.88] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 3: secondary caries Continent: Europe | RR 6.53 [4.35, 9.81] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: Asia | RR 0.80 [0.59, 1.07] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 7: non-stable (mobile) restoration Continent: Africa | RR 10.88 [4.01, 29.56] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin Coverage: Not covering | RR 4.55 [2.78, 7.45] | NR | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: corrosion Continent: South America | RR 2.13 [0.84, 5.39] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration Continent: Asia | RR 4.81 [3.14, 7.37] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 6: superficial discoloration Continent: Europe | RR 0.20 [0.14, 0.29] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 1: partial loss or fracture of the restoration Coverage: Not covering | RR 0.73 [0.52, 1.03] | NR | Ungraded |