References

Eltahlah D, Lynch CD, Chadwick B, Blum IR, Wilson NHF. An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. J Dent. 2018; 72:1-7
Blum IR. The management of failing direct composite restorations: replace or repair?. In: Lynch CD, Brunton PA, Wilson NHF (eds). London: Quintessence Publishing Company; 2008
Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NHF. Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2014; 17:81-88
Blum IR, Schriever A, Heidemann D, Mjör IA, Wilson NHF. The repair of direct composite restorations: an international survey of the teaching of operative techniques and materials. Eur J Dent Educ. 2003; 7:41-48
Gordan VV, Mjör IA, Blum IR, Wilson NHF. Teaching students the repair of resin based composite restorations: a survey of North American dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134:317-323
Blum IR, Lynch CD. Repair versus replacement of defective direct dental restoration in posterior teeth of adults. Prim Dent J. 2014; 3:62-67
Blum IR. Restoration repair as a contemporary approach to tooth preservation. Prim Dent J. 2019; 8:38-42
Blum IR, Özcan M. Reparative dentistry: possibilities and limitations. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2018; 5:264-269
Green D, MacKenzie L, Banerjee A. Minimally invasive long-term management of direct restorations: the ‘5Rs’. Dent Update. 2015; 42:413-426
Combe EC, Burke FJT, Douglas WH.USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999
Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 10: key findings from a ten million restoration dataset. Br Dent J. 2018; 225:1011-1018
Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Clinical evaluation of direct cusp coverage posterior composite resin restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2006; 18:256-267
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, James A, MacKenzie L, Thompson O, Pal A, Sands P, Palin WM. Five-year clinical evaluation of restorations placed in a low shrinkage stress composite in UK general dental practices. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 2017; 25:108-114
Burke FJT. Repair of metal-ceramic restorations using an abrasive silica-impregnating technique: two case reports. Dent Update. 2002; 29:398-402
Burke FJT. Repair of fractured metal-ceramic restorations using tribochemical impregnation. Dent Update. 2016; 43
Stewardson DA, Creanor S, Thornley P, Biggs T, Burke FJT The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice. Part 3: five-year survival. Br Dent J. 2012; 212
Heintze S, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations: a meta analysis. Dent Mater. 2010; 26:993-1000
Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent. 1992; 5:315-317
Zimmerli B, De Munck J, Lussi A, Lambrechts P, van Meerbeck B. Long-term bonding to eroded dentin requires superficial bur preparation. Clin Oral Invest. 2012; 16:1451-1461
Nordbo H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR. Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int. 1998; 29:5-11
Peumans M, DeMunck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeck B. Eight year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater. 2010; 26:1176-1184
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, Cowan AJ, Raybould L, Redfearn P, Sands P, Thompson O, Ravaghi V. A randomised controlled trial of a universal bonding agent at three years: self etch vs total etch. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 2017; 25:220-227
Mackenzie L, Burke FJT, Shortall AC. Posterior composites: a practical guide revisited. Dent Update. 2012; 39:211-216
Burke FJT, Mackenzie L, Shortall ACC. Survival rates of resin composite restorations in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth. Dent Update. 2019; 46:523-535
Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 9: Incisor teeth: restoration time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth. Br Dent J. 2018; 225:964-975
Lucarotti PSK, Burke FJT. Patient history as a predictor of future treatment need? Considerations from a dataset containing over nine million courses of treatment. Br Dent J. 2019; 228:345-350

Suggestions for Non-Aerosol or Reduced-Aerosol Restorative Dentistry (for as Long as is Necessary)

From Volume 47, Issue 6, June 2020 | Pages 485-493

Authors

FJ Trevor Burke

DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS, FDS (RCS Edin), FDS RCS (Eng), FCG Dent, FADM,

Articles by FJ Trevor Burke

Louis Mackenzie

BDS, FDS RCPS FCGDent, Head Dental Officer, Denplan UK, Andover

General Dental Practitioner, Birmingham; Clinical Lecturer, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, Birmingham, UK.

Articles by Louis Mackenzie

Peter Sands

MSc, BDS, LDS, MCGD

Didcot, Oxfordshire

Articles by Peter Sands

Abstract

The advent of coronavirus and the associated disease COVID-19 has led to the closure of dental practices in the UK and, indeed, in many parts of the world. In order to get dental practices operating again, it is suggested that it is necessary to adopt a new way of working. Principal among concerns has been the potential carriage of droplets (from an infected patient) into the aerosols resulting from the use of the turbine handpiece and from ultrasonic and sonic scalers, and other instruments used in restorative dentistry (current terminology being Aerosol Generating Procedures [AGPs]). It is therefore the aim of this paper to review restorative techniques and suggest those which are appropriate to aerosol-free, or reduced-aerosol restorative dentistry.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: With anxieties regarding aerosol generating procedures abounding, it may be helpful to review procedures which either reduce or avoid these AGPs.

Article

The advent of coronavirus and the associated disease COVID-19 has led to the closure of dental practices in the UK and, indeed, in many parts of the world. At the time of writing, dental practices in many countries have re-opened and, in some countries, practices did not close. The “green light” to re-open dental practices in the UK has therefore come later than in many places. In order to get dental practices operating again, the authors suggest that it is necessary to adopt a new way of working. Principal among concerns has been the potential carriage of infected droplets (from an infected patient) into the aerosols resulting from the use of the turbine handpiece and from ultrasonic scalers, and other instruments used in restorative dentistry (current terminology being Aerosol Generating Procedures [AGPs]). It may be of interest to note that the World Health Organization has produced a list of AGPs in healthcare and dentistry is not mentioned.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available