Is it ok to run fsck intead of e2fsck for a read only badblocks correction?

I have a hard drive with a failing block that points to inode 8 of the first partition, this falls in exactly on the journal. So I tried to run e2fsck -cpvk but the problem is that i forgot to write e2 and instead run fsck with the same commands, like fsck -cpvk /dev/sdd1 , I hope that this are equivalent, however I think that for an ext4 partition fsck should run fsck.ext4 instead of e2fsck, so I still hope they are all the same.

Also I read that I should rewrite the entire journal to the partition, but I considered more safe to mark the bad blocks first. Am I'm doing well or my safety consideritions and mistype are scrpapping all?

Edit: I somehow already figured that they are luckly the same (if everything on the system and filesystem is between safe parameters -like nothing wild coming in-, which luckly is). Now it results that the inode 8 is multiply claimed by "other files", coming from fsck those "files" should be some other parts of the journal, but how can I tell? now the question is weather to remake the journal on that partition or not.

fsck said that I should to run it again MANUALLY (whithout -a or -p options), what means I've been left outside for the elements.

So should I face the elements or wish good luck at rewritteing the journal?

I don't know what option would be worse, luckly I already have an image of that partition done bt ddrescue.

From the man page:

" In actuality, fsck is simply a front-end for the various filesystem checkers (fsck.fstype) available under Linux. The filesystem-specific checker is searched for in the PATH environment variable. If the PATH is undefined then fallback to /sbin. Please see the filesystem-specific checker manual pages for further details. "

It's automatically going to run the right fsck for whatever file system exists on the partition you've indicated.