Determining the Failure Rate of Direct Restorations-Chart Review versus Electronic Health Record Reports

• Main Authors: Priyal Patel (Author), Utsavi Kapadia (Author), Janhvi Vyas (Author), Sahil Mhay (Author), Romesh P. Nalliah (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: MDPI AG, 2024-08-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.3390/dj12080250; 2304-6767
• Keywords: restoration failure; dental school setting; failure rate of amalgam-composite restorations; clinical performance of amalgam and composite restorations; reasons for dental restoration failure; failure rate of restoration; Dentistry; RK1-715
• Source: Dentistry Journal, Vol 12, Iss 8, p 250 (2024)

Amalgam and composite restorations are used to treat minor dental issues. University of Michigan, School of Dentistry Electronic Health Record (EHR) reports show a 2.31% failure rate for amalgam and 1.14% for composite. Our study aims to determine the true failure rates through manual EHR chart reviews. Patient data from the University of Michigan School of Dentistry were utilized-216 amalgam restorations from 2020 to 2022 and 350 composite restorations in 2021 were searched. We defined <i>failure and retreatment</i> as replacing a restoration with the same material and <i>failure and alternate treatment</i> as replacing restoration with an alternative treatment within one year. The <i>failure rate</i> refers to a combination of replacement with the same and alternative treatment material within one year. For Amalgam: 1.85% failed and were retreated; 7.87% failed and were received an alternate treatment. Composite: 9.71% failed and retreated; 2.86% failed and received alternate treatment. In total anterior composite: 10.5% retreated, 2.6% failed; posterior composite: 9.1% retreated, 3.0% failed. Our study revealed higher restoration failure rates than the reports extracted in the EHR. This highlights the need to foster a culture of precise documentation to align EHR reports with hand-search findings.