Wiegand, Annette E.

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","121"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Dentistry"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","124"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","75"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Wilson, Nairn H. F."],["dc.contributor.author","Lynch, Christopher D."],["dc.contributor.author","Blum, Igor R."],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T07:25:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T07:25:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018-06-19"],["dc.description.abstract","Objectives: To identify potential changes in various aspects of teaching and to ascertain whether previously found inconsistencies in the teaching of criteria, indications and operative techniques for the repair of defective composite restorations at German dental schools have been resolved.\r\nMethods: A validated questionnaire was used to gain the information sought. It was sent to all dental schools in Germany (n = 30). Whenever possible, data were compared to previous studies conducted in 2000 and 2009. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact tests (p < 0.05).\r\nResults: Twenty-nine schools responded to the survey - a response rate of 97%. All respondents indicated positive experiences with the repair of restorations. The teaching of repairs in 2018 (90%) was found to be comparable to the findings from the 2009 survey (88%, p = 1.000), but significantly increased since the 2000 survey (50%, p = 0.006). Main reasons reported for teaching repairs are tooth substance preservation (97%) and reduction of pulpal damage (79%). Main clinical indications are marginal defects and secondary caries. When performing repairs, almost all dental schools were found to teach both mechanical and adhesive substrate surface conditioning. Marked variation was observed in the method of mechanical surface treatment, with air abrasion having gained widespread popularity. The average expected longevity of repairs was 7.4 ± 3.0 years.\r\nConclusions: The teaching of the repair of resin composite restorations is widespread in dental schools in Germany. Aspects of this teaching were found to be more consistent between dental schools than in previous surveys, albeit variation in operative techniques still exists.\r\nClinical significance: Graduates from dental schools in Germany may be found to be well equipped with the knowledge and skills to perform repairs of defective resin based composite restorations in clinical practice."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.008"],["dc.identifier.pmid","29933003"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65689"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.issn","0300-5712"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Teaching"],["dc.title","Contemporary teaching of restoration repair at dental schools in Germany – Close to universality and consistency"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","103303"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Dentistry"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","95"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-20T13:09:53Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T07:47:36Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-20T13:09:53Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T07:47:36Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020-02-20"],["dc.description.abstract","Objectives: Repairs are frequently taught at dental schools around the world. Various studies regarding the teaching of composite repairs were performed over the past 20 years. However, it is unclear if teaching reflects current evidence and if clinical recommendations have changed over time.\r\nSources: Electronic databases (Embase, Scopus, PubMed) were searched.\r\nStudy selection: Studies reporting on teaching concepts (i.e. recommended treatment steps) were included. Teaching was analysed regarding key treatment steps for conditioning of the repair surface (use of (1) diamond burs, (2) air abrasion/silica coating, (3) application of silane or universal primers, and (4) application of adhesives) using random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regressions, and an overall quality score.\r\nData: 63 records were assessed, and 12 studies having surveyed 331 dental schools were included. The mean (95 % CI) proportion of dental schools teaching the use of diamond burs for roughening of the repair surface amounted to 83.0 % (71.0-90.7 %). Air abrasion / silica coating, the use of silane/universal primers and adhesives was taught by 29.8 % (18.7-44.1 %), 32.4 % (21.1-46.2 %), and 86.4 % (73.5-93.6 %), respectively. In recent years, dental schools more often taught the use of adhesives (padj. = 0.012) and the mean overall quality score of teaching improved (p = 0.007).\r\nConclusions: Share of dental schools recommending most of the key treatment steps did not significantly increase over the past 20 years. However, the overall quality of teaching improved, and teaching is nowadays more consistent with recently published recommendations.\r\nClinical significance: Repairs are not only frequently taught, but the mean overall quality score did improve in recent years."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103303"],["dc.identifier.pmid","32088217"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65697"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65638"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1879-176X"],["dc.relation.issn","0300-5712"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Systematic review"],["dc.subject.gro","Teaching"],["dc.title","Teaching of composite restoration repair: Trends and quality of teaching over the past 20 years"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","41"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Dentistry"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","47"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","54"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Schwendicke, Falk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:06:35Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T07:59:56Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:06:35Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T07:59:56Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016-08-26"],["dc.description.abstract","Objectives: Repairing instead of replacing partially defective composite or amalgam restorations might reduce the initial treatment risks and costs, but could be less advantageous long-term due to repeated re-interventions being required. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations.\r\nMethods: A mixed public-private-payer perspective from the German healthcare setting was adopted. A permanent molar with a three-surfaced partially defective composite or amalgam restoration in need of repair or replacement was modelled. Risks of complications after repair or complete replacement were derived by a rapid systematic literature review. The health outcome measure was tooth retention years. Costs were estimated from the German public and private fee catalogues. Monte-Carlo microsimulations were performed and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to express cost differences per gain or loss of effectiveness.\r\nResults: Compared with complete composite replacement, composite repairs were marginally more costly and more effective (€326 versus €321; 24.7 versus 24.0 years; ICER: €7.14). Amalgam repairs were more costly and more effective than complete replacement (€467 versus €326; 24.3 versus 23.7 years; ICER: €235). If composite repair costs were €<67 or complete replacement costs €>166, composite repair was always cost-effective. This was not the case for amalgam repair. The size of the restoration, the reason for repair/replacement, and patients' age were found to influence the cost-effectiveness.\r\nConclusions: Repair was found to be more effective, but not necessarily less costly than complete replacement of restorations.\r\nClinical significance: Repairing instead of replacing partially defective restorations is likely to retain teeth for longer compared with complete replacement. When considering cost-effectiveness, repairing composite can be recommended more strongly than repairing amalgam restorations."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.008"],["dc.identifier.isi","000386677200005"],["dc.identifier.pmid","27575986"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65704"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/39122"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.eissn","0300-5712"],["dc.relation.issn","1879-176X"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Decision-making"],["dc.subject.gro","Economic evaluation"],["dc.subject.gro","Mathematical modelling"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Restorative dentistry"],["dc.title","Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Dentistry"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","16"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","86"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Schwendicke, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Göstemeyer, Gerd"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T07:01:08Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T07:01:08Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019-05-17"],["dc.description.abstract","Objectives: While repairs are increasingly recommended to manage partially defective restorations, performing the repair (including bonding to different substrates) can be challenging, and dentists should adhere to established repair protocols. We aimed to systematically assess the consistency and quality of repair protocols.\r\nData: 808 records were initially identified and 71 repair protocols based on 84 sources included. The number of published sources over time increased exponentially (p < 0.001). Recommended treatment steps varied widely. Some treatment steps were only recommended by a minority of protocols, while others were consistently recommended (e.g. surface roughening, hydrofluoric acid etching of silicate ceramics, application of an adhesive/bonding agent). The overall quality of included sources was moderate (mean ± SD 3.7 ± 0.9 out of 7 points).\r\nSources: Electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase) were searched, hand searches using Google and Google Scholar conducted, and the reference lists of included full texts screened and cross-referenced.\r\nStudy selection: (Non-)systematic reviews, working instructions, and textbooks with protocols on direct composite repair restorations for partially defective (1) composite, (2) amalgam, (3) porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFMs) with exposed metal base, (4) ceramic/PFMs without exposed metal base, and (5) full metal restorations were included. Data synthesis was performed by tabulation of recommended treatment steps and descriptive statistics. The quality of included sources was assessed based on a checklist for guideline appraisal (MiChe).\r\nConclusions: The main treatment steps were consistently reported across repair protocols.\r\nClinical significance: Dentists may want to adopt widely recommended treatment steps when performing repairs of different restoration materials in their daily practice."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.021"],["dc.identifier.pmid","31108118"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65677"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1879-176X"],["dc.relation.issn","0300-5712"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Decision-making"],["dc.subject.gro","Evidence-based practice"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Systematic review"],["dc.title","Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","108"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Dental materials"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","118"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","36"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-20T13:10:38Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T07:11:34Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-20T13:10:38Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T07:11:34Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020-11-26"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective: Our retrospective study aimed to assess the impact of repairs on the longevity of anterior and posterior direct composite restorations and to compare longevity of repaired and replacement restorations.\r\nMethods: Patient records were retrospectively screened for anterior and/or posterior composite restorations with 2+ surfaces placed in permanent teeth between 2000 and 2015. During follow-up, repaired and replaced restorations were assessed and mean annual failure rates (mAFR) calculated. Outcome was considered in three levels: Success (no further intervention), survival 1 (first repair=survival, second repair=failure) and survival 2 (more than one repair=survival, all surfaces repaired=failure). Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier statistics, log-rank tests, and multi-variate Cox-regression analyses with shared frailty (p<0.05).\r\nResults: 8542 initial restorations placed in 3239 patients were included (4.7±4.4 years follow-up, 2.5±0.7 surfaces). Longevity of initial restorations was prolonged by repair(s) (after 10 years: success: 68.3%, mAFR: 3.7%; survival 1: 77.3%, mAFR: 2.5%; survival 2: 80.4%, mAFR: 2.2%; p<0.001). 616 repaired restorations (4.9±4.2 years follow-up, 3.5±1.0 surfaces) and 264 replacement restorations (5.6±4.1 years follow-up, 3.0±0.8 surfaces) were analyzed. Success of repaired restorations amounted to 43.4% after 10 years (mAFR: 8.0%), further repair(s) prolonged survival (survival 1: 65.7%, mAFR: 4.1%; survival 2: 74.8%, mAFR: 2.9%; p<0.001). Success of replacement restorations amounted to 48.6% after 10 years (mAFR: 7.0%), repair(s) prolonged survival (survival 1: 67.4%, mAFR: 3.9%, p=0.044; survival 2: 74.1%, mAFR: 3.0%, p=0.003).\r\nSignificance: Repairs are suitable to increase the survival of restorations; repaired restorations last as long as replacements."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.dental.2019.11.001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","31784061"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65683"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65642"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1879-0097"],["dc.relation.issn","0109-5641"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Composite materials"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Restorative dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Success"],["dc.subject.gro","Survival"],["dc.title","Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","e375"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Dental Materials"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","e381"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","37"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Krois, Joachim"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Schwendicke, Falk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-06-01T10:49:33Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-06-01T10:49:33Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021-03-02"],["dc.description.abstract","Objectives: When managing partially defective restorations, dentists can choose between repair and replacement. We aimed to assess the long-term treatment costs of repairs and replacements.\r\nMethods: Partially defective anterior and posterior composite restorations in permanent teeth had been repaired or replaced in a German university hospital and were retrospectively followed until censoring or one of the following events: (1) Extraction, (2) Major complications including placement of indirect restorations, endodontic treatments and extractions, or (3) Any complications including major complications and further direct restorations. Costs were estimated from a German mixed public-private-payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness differences were described using median-based incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERMEDIAN). Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed modeling (GLM), Chi2-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test (p < 0.05).\r\nResults: A total of 616 repairs in 468 patients (follow-up: 4.9 ± 4.1 years) and 264 replacements in 218 patients (follow-up: 4.8 ± 4.3) were included. While replacements were associated with higher initial treatment costs, median annualized treatment costs did not significantly differ between repair (47.58 Euro [IQR: 24.41-107.04]) and replacement (50.64 Euro [IQR: 26.30-118.78]; p > 0.05), but were higher for molars (75.53 Euro [IQR: 24.41-92.18]) than incisors (45.03 Euro [IQR: 28.19-168.50]; p = 0.011). The difference in the % of extractions, major and any complications were minimal between both groups. The mean ICERMEDIAN of replacement vs. repair was -146.8 Euro/% when extractions were considered as outcomes. Regarding major and any complications, mean ICERMEDIAN amounted to 67.6 Euro/% and 23.9 Euro/%, respectively.\r\nSignificance: Repairs and replacements of partially defective restorations showed similar long-term costs and cost-effectiveness."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.dental.2021.02.008"],["dc.identifier.pmid","33663883"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/86333"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-425"],["dc.relation.issn","0109-5641"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Composite materials"],["dc.subject.gro","Cost-effectiveness"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Restorative dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Treatment costs"],["dc.title","Long-term treatment costs and cost-effectiveness of restoration repair versus replacement"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]