A new survey of all 10 Canadian dental schools reports that every school repairs defective composite restorations to extend their clinical service, and 70% teach repair techniques in undergraduate clinical training. The study, published online in the Journal of Dentistry on October 17, 2026, also found that schools differ on how repair is taught and classified, and its authors call for harmonised teaching across Canada.
Repairing a defective composite instead of replacing it is now standard teaching at most Canadian dental schools. As of October 2026, that is the headline finding of a cross-sectional study titled "Repair versus replacement of defective composite restorations: Teaching in dental schools in Canada," published in volume 177 of the Journal of Dentistry (PMID 42892357). For dentists in Toronto and across the GTA, the paper is a useful snapshot of what newly graduated associates are being taught to do when they find a marginal defect, secondary caries or another localized defect on an existing composite.
The author group is international. It includes researchers from McGill University's Faculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences in Montreal and Dalhousie University's Faculty of Dentistry in Halifax, alongside co-authors in Malaysia, Pakistan, Finland, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Contact emails are listed for authors at Dalhousie University and King's College London.
What did the study look at?
The investigators surveyed Canadian dental schools using a validated questionnaire. According to the abstract, it asked about both preclinical and clinical instruction, the number and duration of teaching modules, the logistics of teaching, clinical requirements, and the challenges schools face in teaching repair. Responses were entered into a spreadsheet, then collated and analysed.
The response rate is the first thing worth noting: the authors report that all 10 Canadian dental schools responded, a 100% response rate. That makes this a census of Canadian dental education on this question rather than a sample.
Key findings
The abstract reports the following results. All percentages refer to the 10 schools surveyed.
- Repair is universal in school clinics. Every school confirmed it performs composite restoration repairs to extend clinical service.
- Most teach it to undergraduates. 70% currently teach repair techniques in undergraduate clinical training, and a further 20% plan to introduce them within five years.
- Patients accept it. All schools (100%) noted that patients were willing to accept repairs.
- Schools disagree on what a repair is. 70% view repair as a definitive treatment, 20% as transitional and 10% as temporary.
- Why schools teach it. The primary reasons given were tooth preservation, pulp protection, marginal defects and secondary caries.
- Technique. 70% teach rubber dam isolation and 70% use diamond finishing instruments. 60% use phosphoric acid etching, adhesive bonding and nano-filled composites.
- Bevelling and follow-up. Most schools (60%) do not teach bevelling or review repaired restorations.
What the authors conclude
The authors conclude that undergraduate students at most Canadian dental schools are taught repair as an alternative to replacement when managing defective composite resin restorations. In their clinical significance statement, they write that teaching repair supports minimally invasive dentistry by preserving sound tooth structure and reducing unnecessary replacement of restorations.
They also call for more consistent teaching. Arrangements to harmonise composite repair teaching "across Canada and beyond," they write, would benefit patients and students, and greater harmonisation of undergraduate teaching could improve consistency in clinical practice and long-term patient care.
Why does this matter for Ontario practices?
The study measures teaching, not patient outcomes, so it does not tell you how long a repaired composite lasts or when repair beats replacement. Its value for a practice owner in Toronto, Mississauga or Markham is more practical: it describes the training your next associate is likely to bring through the door.
Three implications stand out.
1. Expect associates to propose repair
With 70% of schools teaching repair clinically and every school performing it, recent graduates are likely to have been taught repair as an option for a localized defect. If your practice's habits lean toward replacement, it is worth a conversation early in onboarding so treatment planning stays consistent across providers.
2. Agree on what a repair means in your charts
The split between "definitive," "transitional" and "temporary" in the survey is a reminder that the word "repair" does not carry one meaning. A repair one clinician considers definitive may be charted by another as a holding measure. Clear charting of the defect, the reason for repair and the planned follow-up helps the next provider, and the patient, understand what was done and why.
Pro Tip: Add a short, standard note template for composite repairs to your practice management software, with fields for the defect type (marginal, fracture, secondary caries), whether the repair is intended as definitive or transitional, and a recall date to re-check it. It is a quick change that keeps every provider documenting the same way.
3. Follow-up is the gap to close
The finding that 60% of schools do not teach bevelling or review repaired restorations is the one most relevant to day-to-day practice. Whatever a school's teaching, a repaired restoration in your practice should be on the radar at recall. Flagging repaired surfaces in the chart makes it easier to check them at hygiene visits rather than rediscovering them when they fail.
Pro Tip: At your next team meeting, ask hygienists to note "repaired composite" findings at recall for three months. The pattern you see will tell you more about how repairs perform in your own patient base than any single study can.
Limits of the study
Readers should keep the scope in mind. This is a survey of how schools teach, reported through a questionnaire, with 10 respondents. Percentages based on 10 schools move in steps of 10 points, so a single school changes a result noticeably. The abstract does not report clinical performance data for repaired restorations, and it does not name individual schools' answers. The full text may include more detail on teaching hours and challenges; this summary is based on the published abstract and bibliographic record.
EBIKO Dental will continue monitoring Canadian dental education and restorative research for developments relevant to practices in Ontario and across Canada. For more news and practice resources, visit EBIKO Dental.
Sources
- Daood U, Malik NA, Sidhu P, et al. "Repair versus replacement of defective composite restorations: Teaching in dental schools in Canada." Journal of Dentistry, vol. 177, October 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2026.107119
- Europe PMC record: PMID 42892357
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Do Canadian dental schools teach composite repair instead of replacement?
Most do. A 2026 survey in the Journal of Dentistry found that 70% of Canada's 10 dental schools teach repair techniques in undergraduate clinical training, a further 20% plan to within five years, and all 10 perform composite repairs to extend clinical service.
Q: Is a repaired composite considered a permanent restoration?
Canadian schools disagree. In the same survey, 70% of schools viewed repair as a definitive treatment, 20% as transitional and 10% as temporary, which is why clear charting of the intended purpose of a repair is useful.
Q: What repair techniques do Canadian dental schools use?
According to the study, 70% teach rubber dam isolation and 70% use diamond finishing instruments, while 60% use phosphoric acid etching, adhesive bonding and nano-filled composites. Most schools (60%) do not teach bevelling or review repaired restorations.