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

Abstract

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 failure and retreatment as replacing a restoration with the same material and failure and alternate treatment as replacing restoration with an alternative treatment within one year. The failure rate 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.

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