Abstract :
Background: Replacing or repairing a defective restoration has become a daily practice in dentistry. It is therefore necessary to know how to evaluate a restoration to decide whether or not to re-intervene and then to choose whether to replace, repair, or refrain from doing so by setting up a monitoring system. The best-known evaluation criteria accepted by the scientific community are the modified Ryge / USPHS criteria and the FDI criteria.
Results: In Senegal, no such study has been carried out, and it was with this in mind that our study was carried out, involving 158 dental surgeons. The results showed a predominance of men (70.89%). The average age was relatively young at 37. The study confirmed that re-intervention is common practice among the dentists surveyed: the majority (77.72%) had done a re-intervention less than a week before the survey. The most common reason encountered by dentists for their last re-intervention was fracture of the tooth or restorative material with a rate of 36.71%, then we have caries recurrence and advanced decay and wear with the same rate of 17.09%, followed by pain or hypersensitivity with a rate of 16.46%.
After diagnosis, 73% replaced the restoration deemed defective, versus 22% who chose to repair the restoration. Clinical evaluation criteria were used by only 12.66% of the sample. The majority, 74.05% of practitioners, take into account the benefit/risk/cost ratio.
Conclusion: The results of this study show the limits of dental surgeons' knowledge in re-intervention, as well as the lack of codification of parameters related to this practice. It is therefore necessary to develop training programs and teaching units for both initial and continuing training.
Keyword :
Knowledge, Replace, Repair, Restoration, Caries.