RestorativeDentistry 78 DentalUpdate March 2011 Igor R Blum Defective Dental Restorations: To Repair or Not To Repair? Part 1: Direct Composite Restorations Abstract: The presentation of patients with failing dental restorations that exhibit minor defects is a common clinical situation in everyday dental practice. The repair of such restorations, rather than replacement, is increasingly considered to be a viable alternative to the replacement of the defective restoration. This first of two papers considers indications and techniques for the repair of defective direct composite restorations. It is possible that some dental practitioners are unaware of the option of repair rather than replacement of composite restorations. This article provides an overview of contemporary knowledge and understanding of restoration repair in the clinical management of defective composite restorations. Clinical Relevance: A sound understanding of the indications, benefits and techniques of direct composite restoration repair could allow the longevity of the existing restoration to be extended without unnecessarily sacrificing healthy tooth structure. Dent Update 2011; 38: 78–84 There is clearly an increasing demand for aesthetic dental restorations from the general public and dentists are spoilt for choice as to which materials to use and how best to use them. There is no disputing the excellent aesthetics that can be achieved with composite resin as a restorative material; however, the longevity of these materials can be disappointing, especially if not placed using a careful incremental technique. 1 With the increasing use of these materials for the restoration of large defects in posterior teeth, these materials are tested to the maximum. The management of composite restorations with localized defects is a common challenge in clinical practice. While some restorations will inevitably require replacement, it has been suggested that some deteriorating, yet serviceable, restorations may be given extended longevity through the use of repair procedures. 2 This comparatively more conservative approach to the management of defective restorations, if appropriate, has the potential to be less costly in terms of time and financial resources, less traumatic for patients, less likely to result in iatrogenic Igor R Blum, DDS, PhD, Dr Med Dent, MSc, MFDS RCS(Eng & Edin), PGCertHE, FHEA, Clinical Lecturer/Hon Specialist Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, University of Bristol Dental Hospital & School, Daryll C Jagger, BDS, PhD, MSc, FDS RCS(Eng), FDS RCS(Rest Dent), Professor of Restorative Dentistry, Glasgow Dental School and Hospital and Nairn H F Wilson CBE, FKC, DSc(hc), BDS, MSc, PhD, DRD, FDS RCS(Eng & Edin), FFGDP(UK), Professor of Restorative Dentistry and Dean and Head of King’s College London Dental Institute at Guy’s, King’s College and St Thomas’ Hospitals, London, UK. damage, possibly obviate the need for the use of local anaesthesia and be more conservative of tooth tissue. 3–5 It is clearly preferable, therefore, to perform a restoration repair (ie partial replacement of the composite restoration allowing preservation of that portion of the composite restoration which presents no clinical or radiographic evidence of failure) as an alternative to restoration replacement (removal of an entire composite restoration followed by the placement of a new composite restoration) wherever possible. It is accepted that removal of part of the restoration without the aid of magnification loupes can further result in removal of sound tissue and subsequent increase in the size of the cavity. It has been suggested that repair procedures may be most effective when they correct placement defects in otherwise high quality restorations. 6 This is possible given Daryll C Jagger and Nairn HF Wilson