Class II Composite Restorations
J Dent 2000 Aug;28(6):375-82
Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite
restorations: 5-year follow-up.
Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF
Department of Restorative Dentistry, The Dental School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
r.w.wassell@ncl.ac.uk
OBJECTIVES: To determine at 5 year follow-up the failure rate, wear rates and
other aspects of clinical performance of direct composite inlays compared with
conventional composite restorations placed incrementally.
METHODS: 100 matched
pairs of restorations were originally entered into the trial. Each pair
consisted of a direct composite inlay and a conventional composite restoration
made from the same material. At 5 years it was possible to recall 65 pairs, of
which 54 were complete. Clinical assessments were made using USPHS criteria
(indirect measurements of occlusal wear were made using Ivoclar standard dies)
and annual bite wing radiographs.
RESULTS: There was a trend to more failure of
inlays than conventional composites (17.4 c.f. 7.5%) but this was not
significant. The clinical performance of both types of restoration was similar
and compared favourably with the results of studies of other materials.
Secondary decay was diagnosed in only one restoration. Between 3 and 5 years
there was some deterioration in cavo-marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation
(occlusally) and surface roughness (occlusally). There was no apparent
deterioration in colour match, proximal contact, shim stock contacts and
Gingival Index. Wear rates of both types of restoration showed no significant
difference and were essentially linear with a mean of 33-34 microm per year.
CONCLUSION: Both inlays and conventional composite restorations complied with
ADA specification minimum requirements for posterior composite restorations. In
this study the direct inlay technique gave no clinical advantage over
conventional, incremental placement.
Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999 Dec;20(12):1138-44, 1146, 1148
Resin composites in the post-amalgam age.
Lutz F, Krejci I
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology School of
Dentistry, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Resin-based composites are now being used as either amalgam substitutes or
amalgam alternatives for the direct placement of box-shaped, stress-bearing
restorations in posterior teeth. The expected longevity of these restorations is
8 years. With amalgam substitutes, preservation of enamel and dentin and
restoration of tooth form and function must be warranted for the full length of
the envisaged service life. In addition, with amalgam alternatives, the
restoration must be, and must remain, imperceptible at a normal talking
distance. The limiting factor with amalgam substitutes is the elevated risk of
secondary caries, which is a result of the marginal openings that are
unavoidably associated with the nature of the operative technique. Restorations
in permanent teeth using amalgam substitutes most likely fail in some critical
aspect of the Swiss Dental Society quality guidelines. With amalgam
alternatives, the high cost and the demanding operative technique remain the
main criticisms. However, amalgam alternatives, if they are placed using a
sophisticated operative technique resulting in perfectly adapted restorations,
meet the high expectations outlined in the Swiss Dental Society quality
guidelines and fit the clinical concept of the post-amalgam age.
J Esthet Dent 1999;11(5):234-49
Packable composites: overview and technical
considerations.
Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.
OBJECTIVE: New composites, called packable or condensable composites, are being
promoted as amalgam alternatives. The purposes of this review article are to
identify these products, define new terminology associated with them, summarize
the advertised properties for the materials, discuss the ideal properties for
packable composites, review the properties of the major products, and critically
evaluate the proposed handling procedures for these materials.
REVIEW: The term
packable is preferable to condensable for describing this new class of
materials. All materials should be considered amalgam alternatives, not
amalgam substitutes. The compositions and physical properties reported by
manufacturers reveal that none of the materials represents a remarkable
improvement over the properties of more traditional universal composites. The
designs of Solitaire (Heraeus Kulzer), ALERT (Jeneric-Pentron), and SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk)
are discussed in detail. The distinguishing characteristics of all packable
compositions are less stickiness or stiffer viscosity than conventional
composites, which allow them to be placed in a manner that somewhat resembles
amalgam placement.
CONCLUSION: Packable composites may allow more convenient
placement in posterior sites and may offer some technique advantages over
conventional composites. However, there is no evidence that their clinical
properties are consistently better than those of conventional universal
composites.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Packable composites may be selected as
alternatives to amalgam or conventional universal composites, but they are not
equal to or better than dental amalgam in all respects. Also, in most cases,
mechanical properties of packable composites are not substantially better than
those of most conventional universal composites.
J Esthet Dent 1999;11(3):135-42
Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class
I and II restorations.
Wilder AD Jr, May KN Jr, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical performance of four commercial ultraviolet
light-cured composite materials, and to evaluate curing-system effects on
long-term wear resistance of Class I and II restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Approximately 32 samples of each of four different ultraviolet light-cured
composites (n = 130) were inserted into conventional Class I and II cavity
preparations by two clinicians. Cavosurface margins of the preparations were not
beveled. Enamel walls of the preparation were etched, and the respective bonding
agent was applied. Each restoration was evaluated by two clinicians at 5, 10,
and 17 years. Direct evaluations were performed using modified United States
Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Indirect evaluations were performed
using the Leinfelder cast evaluation method. RESULTS: After 17 years, 65% of the
restorations were recalled and pooled direct evaluations were conducted for
color matching (94% alfa), marginal discoloration (100% alfa), marginal
integrity (100% alfa), secondary caries (92% alfa), surface texture (72% alfa),
and anatomic form (22% alfa). Mean occlusal wear from indirect evaluations at 5,
10, and 17 years was 197 +/- 85 microns, 235 +/- 72 microns, and 264 +/- 80
microns, respectively. For direct and indirect evaluations there were
significant differences (p < or = .05) between the baseline and 5-year recall
evaluations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrated that the mean pooled
occlusal wear of four ultraviolet light-cured posterior composites at 17 years
was 264 microns (approximately 0.25 mm), and that most wear (75%) occurred in
the first 5 years. Of all recalled restorations, 76% were judged clinically
acceptable at 17 years, and 22% of those exhibited no clinically detectable
wear.
Clin Oral Investig 1999 Dec;3(4):208-15 Related Articles,
Internal adaptation and overhang formation of direct
Class II resin composite restorations.
Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Pelka M, Petschelt A
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Policlinic for Operative Dentistry and
Periodontology, Germany. frankbg@dent.uni-erlangen.de
The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate different restorative
concepts for posterior resin composite fillings in terms of internal adaptation
and overhang formation. Eighty standard occluso-distal cavities with and without
a 1.5-mm bevel were restored in a phantom head using Syntac Classic and Tetric
Ceram with and without Tetric Flow as thin lining or Solid Bond and Solitaire
with and without FlowLine. The restorations were finished intraorally and
afterwards subjected to thermal loading (1150 x +5 degrees C/+55 degrees C) for
24 h. The proximal margins of the original specimens were analyzed for overhangs
under a stereo light microscope (100-fold magnification) before and after
intraoral control with loupes, including additional polish. Afterwards the teeth
were cut longitudinally, replicated, and their internal integrity analyzed under
a SEM (200-fold magnification). The combination of flowable and viscous
composites resulted in enhanced internal adaptation for both adhesive systems.
However, Syntac Classic exhibited superior adaptation characteristics compared
with Solid Bond. In terms of overhang formation, the use of flowable materials
always led to higher percentages of marginal overhangs in beveled cavities.
Higher viscous materials alone resulted in higher percentages of underfilled
margins of beveled than box-shaped cavities. It was clear that the use of
magnifying glasses during finishing was beneficial for reducing marginal
overhangs up to 40%.
J Prosthet Dent 1999 Oct;82(4):391-7 Related Articles,
Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect
composite restorations in posterior teeth.
Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R
School of Dentistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Few long-term clinical studies have reported data of
modern posterior composites as direct and indirect restorations. PURPOSE: This
prospective, long-term clinical trial (1) evaluated direct and indirect
composite restorations for clinical acceptability as posterior restoratives in
single or multisurface carious teeth and (2) provided a survey on the 2-year
results.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine dental students placed 88 composite
restorations (Tetric, blend-a-lux, Pertac-Hybrid Unifil), 43 direct composite
restorations and 45 indirect inlays, under the supervision of an experienced
dentist. The first clinical evaluation was performed 11 to 13 months after
placement by 2 other experienced dentists, using modified USPHS criteria. A
second follow-up of 60 restorations took place within 20 to 26 months after
placement. RESULTS: A total of 93% of indirect and 90% of direct composite
restorations were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable. Two
restorations (1 indirect composite inlay and 1 margin of a direct composite
restoration) failed during the second year because of fracture. Indirect inlays
demonstrated a significantly better "anatomic form of the surface"
than direct composite restorations. Premolars revealed a significantly better
margin integrity and postoperative symptoms than molars. CONCLUSION: : Posterior
composite restorations provided a satisfactory clinical performance over a
2-year period when placed by relatively inexperienced but supervised students.
J Prosthet Dent 1999 Aug;82(2):167-71 Related Articles,
Fracture resistance of teeth restored with onlays of
three contemporary tooth-colored resin-bonded restorative materials.
Brunton PA, Cattell P, Trevor Burke FJ, Wilson NH
Turner Dental School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
paul.brunton@man.ac.uk
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There are uncertainties regarding the use of large
indirect composites and ceramics in the restoration of posterior teeth. PURPOSE:
This study investigated the fracture resistance of teeth restored with
restorations of 3 contemporary resin-bonded tooth-colored materials placed in a
standardized onlay preparation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A random sample of
preparations for tooth-colored onlays was obtained from a full service dental
laboratory. A preparation was then duplicated in 30 natural teeth by copy
milling. An additional 10 teeth were not prepared, and acted as a control. Ten
onlays of each of the 3 materials (Belle Glass, SR Isosit, and Empress) were
produced and resin bonded into place according to the manufacturers'
instructions. The restorations were compressively loaded to fracture and the
mode of failure recorded.
RESULTS: The fracture resistances obtained for the
teeth restored with the composite material (mean 1.56 kN; SD 0.54) were greater
than those obtained for the teeth restored with the ceramic material (mean 0.99
kN; SD 0.49) and the fiber-reinforced composite material (mean 0.99 kN; SD
0.56).
CONCLUSION: : Teeth restored with composite onlay restorations demonstrated
a higher fracture resistance than equivalent sized onlay restorations produced
from fiber-reinforced composite or a ceramic material. Failure under compressive
loading may be found to be less catastrophic when a fiber-reinforced composite
rather than a composite or ceramic material is used.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999 Apr;27(2):137-43
Cost-effectiveness of composite resins and amalgam in
the replacement of amalgam Class II restorations.
Tobi H, Kreulen CM, Vondeling H, van Amerongen WE
Department of Cariology Endodontology Pedodontology, Academic Centre for
Dentistry Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.tobi@acta.nl
OBJECTIVES: The replacement of an old amalgam Class II restoration is a common
treatment and will remain so for decades. In addition to effectiveness, possible
adverse health effects and esthetics, the costs of the treatment options will
play a role in the choice of material. The aim of this study was to yield
information on the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of composite resins
and amalgam for the rerestoration of amalgam Class II restorations.
METHODS: As
part of a larger randomized clinical trial, treatment effectiveness and
treatment costs were estimated in 73 composite and amalgam Class II posterior
re-restorations. The main treatment outcome was longevity. Secondary outcomes
included need of repair and quality of the margin while in situ. Costs were
analyzed from the perspective of dentistry, assuming a treatment strategy aimed
at offering 'value for money'. From this perspective, differential costs were
based on personnel costs as approximated by treatment time.
RESULTS: Replacing
an amalgam Class II restoration with amalgam is associated with lower costs than
replacing with a composite resin. A sensitivity analysis, considering type of
composite, increasing proficiency with the material, and time needed for future
removal of material, demonstrated that these differences are fairly robust. The
materials performed equally well for the first 5 years after placement with
respect to longevity. Differences in secondary outcomes were minor and not all
in favor of the same material.
CONCLUSION: It is tentatively concluded that
amalgams are more cost-effective than composites for replacing existing Class II
amalgam restorations.
J Dent Res 1999 Feb;78(2):706-12
Ceramic whisker reinforcement of dental resin
composites.
Xu HH, Martin TA, Antonucci JM, Eichmiller FC
Paffenbarger Research Center, American Dental Association Health Foundation,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA.
Resin composites currently available are not suitable for use as large
stress-bearing posterior restorations involving cusps due to their tendencies
toward excessive fracture and wear. The glass fillers in composites provide only
limited reinforcement because of the brittleness and low strength of glass. The
aim of the present study was to reinforce dental resins with ceramic
single-crystalline whiskers of elongated shapes that possess extremely high
strength. A novel method was developed that consisted of fusing silicate glass
particles onto the surfaces of individual whiskers for a two-fold benefit: (1)
to facilitate silanization regardless of whisker composition; and (2) to enhance
whisker retention in the matrix by providing rougher whisker surfaces. Silicon
nitride whiskers, with an average diameter of 0.4 microm and length of 5 microm,
were coated by the fusion of silica particles 0.04 microm in size to the whisker
surface at temperatures ranging from 650 degrees C to 1000 degrees C. The coated
whiskers were silanized and manually blended with resins by spatulation.
Flexural, fracture toughness, and indentation tests were carried out for
evaluation of the properties of the whisker-reinforced composites in comparison
with conventional composites. A two-fold increase in strength and toughness was
achieved in the whisker-reinforced composite, together with a substantially
enhanced resistance to contact damage and microcracking. The highest flexural
strength (195+/-8 MPa) and fracture toughness (2.1+/-0.3 MPa x m(1/2)) occurred
in a composite reinforced with a whisker-silica mixture at whisker:silica mass
ratio of 2:1 fused at 800 degrees C. To conclude, the strength, toughness, and
contact damage resistance of dental resin composites can be substantially
improved by reinforcement with fillers of ceramic whiskers fused with silica
glass particles.
van, et al.-1999-Longevity of extensive class II open-sandwich
restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement.-J Dent Res-78-1319-25-
Several new techniques have been introduced for use in the esthetic restoration of
posterior cavities to substitute for the presumed toxicity of amalgam. Composite-laminated
glass-ionomer cement restorations, the sandwich technique, have been recommended for
caries-risk patients. Clinical evaluation of the use of conventional glass-ionomer cements
in the open-sandwich restoration has shown a high failure rate. The aim of this study was
to evaluate the durability and cariostatic effect of a modified open-sandwich restoration
utilizing a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) in large cavities. The materials
consisted of 274 mostly extensive Class II Vitremer/Z100 restorations performed by four
dentists in 168 adults. Six experimental groups were investigated. In four groups a thick
and in two groups a thin layer of cement was placed. Cavity conditioning before
application of the RMGIC self-etching primer was done in 3 groups with polyacrylic acid
and in one group with maleic acid; in two groups, only water rinsing was performed. The
restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months according to
modified USPHS criteria (van Dijken, 1986). After 3 years, 239 restorations were
evaluated. Twelve (5%) were estimated as non-acceptable. Two were replaced, and seven were
repaired with resin composite. Tooth fractures were observed in 2.5%. Slight erosion of
the RMGIC part was seen in 4%, and in one case operative treatment was indicated.
Post-operative sensitivity was reported for 9 teeth. Forty-three percent of the patients
were considered as caries-risk patients. Only one restoration showed secondary caries. The
three-year results indicated that the modified open-sandwich restoration is an appropriate
alternative to amalgam including extensive restorations.,
Burke, et al.-1999-Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons
for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental
practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom.-Quintessence Int-30-234-42-
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the reasons given by vocational dental practitioners
and their trainers for placement and replacement of restorations.
METHOD AND MATERIALS:
Each participant was asked to record the reason for placement or replacement of
restorations. The age and class of the restoration being replaced were also recorded, as
was the material being used and the material being replaced (if known).
RESULTS: Details
of the reason for placement or replacement was received on 9,031 restorations. Of the
restorations placed, 53.9% were amalgam, 29.8% were resin composite, and 16.3% were
glass-ionomer cement. The reasons for placement or replacement of the restorations were
principally primary caries (41.3%), secondary caries (21.9%), tooth fracture (6.4%),
marginal fracture or degradation (6.1%), and noncarious defects (5.8%). Of the amalgam
restorations, most were placed to restore Class II and Class I preparations (65.8% and
29.9%, respectively). Of the composite restorations, most were placed in Class III and
Class V cavities (35.5% and 26.3%, respectively). Glass-ionomer cement was used
predominantly to restore Class V cavities (63.5%).
CONCLUSION: : Secondary caries was the
most prevalent reason for replacement of restorations, regardless of material. Statistical
analysis indicated that amalgam provided significantly greater longevity than composite or
glass-ionomer materials.,
Hilton-1999-Cavity preparation factors and microleakage of Class
II composite restorations filled at intraoral temperatures. [In Process Citation]-Am J
Dent-12-123-130-
PURPOSE: To determine if alteration of any of the following factors could reduce
microleakage following placement of Class II resin-based composites (RBC) at intraoral
temperature: cavity preparation (vertical wall bevels), finishing technique (delayed vs.
immediate), or postoperative re-bonding (marginal sealing). An additional purpose was to
determine if a decalcification/clearing protocol was a valid technique for assessing
three-dimensional microleakage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty recently extracted human
molars had standardized Class II slot cavities prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces
with the gingival floor located on dentin. The teeth were imbedded in a stone template,
warmed to 37 degrees C and restored immediately upon removal from the oven with visible
light-cured (VLC) adhesive (All-Bond 2) and three horizontal increments of VLC RBC (Bisfil
P) using a metal matrix. Teeth were placed into one of four groups: (1) Control; (2) The
preparation was modified to include 0.5-1.0 mm enamel bevels on the vertical walls (facial
and lingual); (3) Finishing of the RBC was delayed 24 hours; (4) Following immediate
finishing, all margins of the RBC restorations were sealed by dentin bonding agent
application. Teeth were stored at 37 degrees C for 2 weeks, thermocycled 1000x at 5/55
degrees C, stained with silver nitrate, underwent a decalcification and clearing protocol,
and evaluated for three-dimensional dye penetration.
RESULTS: Axial-occlusal enamel
margins exhibited minimal leakage and no differences among the groups. Vertical walls
without bevels exhibited pronounced microleakage. Beveled vertical proximal walls
exhibited significantly less facial and lingual wall microleakage compared to all other
groups, and less gingival marginal leakage compared to the control group.,
Opdam, et al.-1998-Necessity of bevels for box only Class II
composite restorations.-J Prosthet Dent-80-274-9-
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The tooth preparation of a bevel is recommended to improve
marginal quality of a composite restoration. However, in small Class II restorations, it
is unclear if a bevel also contributed to a better marginal fit.
PURPOSE: This study
investigated the influence of tooth preparation design on microleakage of minimal
posterior Class II composite restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Box-shaped Class II tooth
preparations for posterior composite restorations in maxillary premolars were restored
with a total etch technique. The tooth preparations were beveled or non-beveled and the
box prepared at a right angle cervically or additionally excavated. The facial and lingual
box margins were also either beveled or unbeveled. The teeth were thermocycled and
immersed in a dye solution. After sectioning specimens, dye penetration at the facial and
palatal margins was recorded.
RESULTS: A bevel-reduced microleakage both at the cervical
and ascending walls. Enamel cracks were observed along certain unbeveled margins as
recorded in this study. The additional excavation did not contribute to reduction of
microleakage.
CONCLUSION: Tooth preparation of a bevel is recommended for an optimal
marginal seal in small box-type Class II composite restorations.,
Christensen-1998-Amalgam vs. composite resin: 1998.-J Am Dent
Assoc-129-1757-9-
Class II resin restorations have been evolving in American dentistry for 30 years, but
the concept has had significant difficulty being accepted because of stigma attached to
early generations of composites. Currently available composite resins for posterior tooth
restorations have physical characteristics justifying their use. Techniques for Class II
resin placement have improved significantly, and mastery of them is within the ability of
both dentists and dental students. Although composite resin materials and techniques
present clinical challenges, so do amalgam materials and techniques. It is time to accept
Class II resin restorations, improve dentist and student education about their use,
increase acceptance by third-party organizations and various approving groups, and bring
this concept into the mainstream of U.S. dentistry.,
Leinfelder and Prasad-1998-A new condensable composite for the
restoration of posterior teeth.-Dent Today-17-112-6-
Undoubtedly the greatest resistance of clinicians to use composite resins in posterior
teeth relates to technique sensitivity, time consumption, and complexity. Placing
conventional posterior composite resins does not take into account that composites differ
considerably from amalgam. This is particularly true with respect to its physical
characteristics, especially insertion and packing properties. The development of a
posterior composite resin that can be placed by an amalgam carrier and subsequently packed
or condensed as an amalgam, should assist clinicians greatly in their ability to
successfully restore class II cavity preparations. Acknowledgment is expressed to Bruce
Small, DMD, for the clinical dentistry and slides.,
Hahn, et al.-1998-Marginal leakage in class II-restorations
after use of ceramic-inserts luted with different materials.-J Oral Rehabil-25-567-74-
The efficiency of using prefabricated ceramic inlays to prevent microleakage has been
discussed in different investigations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
marginal microleakage of a new glass ceramic inlay system in combination with two
different composite luting materials and one polyacid-modified composite, respectively.
Standardized class II cavities (n = 60) were filled with (1) Empress inlays fixed with a
highly viscous luting composite as a control group, and with glass ceramic inlays (Cerana)
in combination with (2) a highly viscous luting composite, (3) a low-viscous luting
composite and (4) a polyacid-modified composite, respectively. After thermocycling the
marginal quality was analysed with scanning electron microscopy, and the dye penetration
along the cavity walls was measured. The use of the Cerana inlays with a polyacid-modified
composite resin did not reveal a good marginal adaptation. However, the combination of the
Cerana and the Empress inlays with the highly viscous composite exhibited a comparable
marginal fit. Within the limitations of an in vitro study it is concluded that the
combination of the new glass ceramic inlays with a polyacid-modified composite cannot be
recommended for clinical use.,
Haase-1998-An innovative approach to Class II preparation and
restoration.-Signature-5-16-9-
When patients exhibit Class II defects requiring restoration, the treatment modality
and respective preparation requirements may present challenges to the clinician.
Aesthetics, chairside time, and expense become factors for the consideration of both
dentist and patient. However, a new sonically driven system for the preparation and
restoration of proximal defects was recently introduced (SONICSYS, Ivoclar Vivadent,
Amherst, NY). This system, composed of diamond-coated tips and prefabricated ceramic
inserts, promises to enable clinicians to efficiently, confidently, and expertly prepare
and restore Class II defects in a timely, consistent, and cost-efficient manner. This
article describes the components of the system and demonstrates its utilization in a case
report.,
Castillo-1999-Class II composite marginal ridge failure:
conventional vs. proximal box only preparation.-J Clin Pediatr Dent-23-131-6-
This study evaluated the force necessary to cause failure at the marginal ridge of
teeth prepared with conventional class II cavity design and teeth prepared with proximal
box-only or vertical slot preparation. The teeth were restored with Herculite XR or Tetric
Ceram. Mean failure loads were not found to be statistically significant between
conventional class II preparations and proximal box-only preparations. The teeth restored
with Tetric Ceram were significantly more resistant to the vertical load than teeth
restored with Herculite.,
Mjor, et al.-1999-Selection of restorative materials in permanent
teeth in general dental practice.-Acta Odontol Scand-57-257-62-
In this study, we recorded the type of restoration and the materials used in 24,429
restorations in permanent teeth by 243 Norwegian clinicians in general practice.
Demographic information included patient's gender and age, and clinician's gender, years
since graduation, and practice setting (private or salaried). The overall recorded use of
restorative materials in permanent teeth shows that 32% are amalgams, just over 40%
composites, and about 25% glass ionomer type materials. Three percent are
"other" materials. A marked shift away from amalgam restorations is noted both
in the clinician's estimated use during the last 2 decades and by comparing the present
use of materials with that in failed restorations. Tooth-colored materials are more
commonly used in adolescents, especially glass ionomer materials, and in female patients.
In patients < or = 18 years, amalgam is used in 25% of all restorations. The use of
amalgam is similar in private practice and in public health service practice, but private
practitioners use more composites and salaried dentists more glass ionomers. The
clinician's gender does not have any effect on the selection of restorative materials. The
change from amalgam to tooth-colored material is particularly noticeable for Class I and
Class V restorations. Amalgam is the predominant material in 2- and 3-surface Class II
restorations.,
Payne-1999-The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable
composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer.-J Clin Pediatr Dent-23-123-30-
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a flowable composite
resin (Tetric Flow) versus an injectable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) on microleakage at the
cavosurface margin of the proximal box of Class II restorations in permanent teeth
in-vitro. Thirty caries and restoration-free human bicuspids were prepared with mesial and
distal slot preparations and were filled either with a bonding agent (Optibond) plus a
flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow), Group I; bonding agent (Optibond) plus a flowable
glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), Group II; or a flowable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) with no
bonding agent, Group III. All specimens were then immersed in a 2% solution of basic
fuschin dye for 24 hours to allow for dye penetration into possible existing gaps. These
teeth were then carefully sectioned mesially/distally into two pieces using an Isomet saw.
The teeth were then studied under a binocular microscope to measure depths of dye
penetrations as an indication of marginal microleakage at the gingival cavosurface margin
and scored as follows: 0 = no dye penetration, 1 = dye penetration into enamel only, 2 =
dye penetration into enamel and dentin, 3 = dye penetration into the pulp. The specimens
were also evaluated using a SEM. The results showed that there were statistically
significant differences between Groups I (Tetric Flow) and (Fuji II LC plus bonding
agent), II in favor of Group I; between Groups I and (Fuji II LC with no bonding agent),
III in favor of Group I; as well as Groups II and III in favor of Group II (Fuji II LC
plus bonding agent). Group I (bonding agent plus flowable composite resin) showed
significantly less microleakage. Group II (bonding agent plus flowable glass ionomer)
demonstrated a bond that existed between the bonding agent and the glass ionomer but
microleakage within microgaps of the glass ionomer itself Group III (flowable glass
ionomer plus no bonding agent) demonstrated significant microleakage between the glass
ionomer and tooth structure, microgaps within the glass ionomer, and lack of retention of
the restoration. It appears that the use of a flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow) plus
a bonding agent (Optibond) in the proximal box of a Class II restoration in permanent
teeth will significantly reduce the microleakage at the cavosurface margin when compared
with an injectable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) with or without a bonding agent (Optibond).,
Kohalmi, et al.-1999-[In vitro comparison of marginal adaptation
of different filling materials. II. Effect of the site and method of preparation on the
marginal adaptation]-Fogorv Sz-92-111-21-
In a two-month in vitro experiment we examined the marginal adaptation of ten dental
materials. Fifty Class II restorations were prepared extending to the cemento-enamel
junction. The cavities of the composite restorations were bevelled at the
vestibulo-occlusal and -approximal enamel margins, on the other side enamel and gingival
margins were prepared conventionally. The specimens were thermocycled and examined with
SEM. The microleakage was measured at the vestibulo-occlusal and -approximal tooth-filling
junction, where adhesive technique was used, and at the gingival, oroocclusal and
-approximal margins, which were not bevelled before. The obviously most important
CONCLUSION: of the study is, that in the case of deep Class II cavities the amalgam has a
better adaptation at the gingival margin than the examined composite resins.,
Hannig, et al.-1999-Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an
alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding.-Oper Dent-24-172-80-
The purpose of this in vitro study was (1) to investigate the composite-to-enamel bond
strength and (2) to analyze the marginal adaptation of resin composite restorations in
class 2 cavities using three self-etching priming agents in comparison to conventional
phosphoric acid etching and bonding application. In the first part of the study 24
extracted bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground flat with 800-grit
paper. The following three self-etching priming agents/composite resins were applied to
the enamel surfaces of six teeth each: Clearfil Liner Bond 2/Clearfil AP-X (Group I), Etch
& Prime 3.0/Degufill mineral (Group II), Resulcin AquaPrime + MonoBond/Ecusit (Group
III). In Group IV Ecusit-Mono/Ecusit was used after enamel etching with phosphoric acid
(37%). Shear bond strength values measured on a T22 K testing machine at a crosshead speed
of 1 mm/min were: 24.2 +/- 3.0 MPa (Group I), 21.9 +/- 1.4 MPa (II), 34.0 +/- 3.6 MPa
(III), and 26.3 +/- 1.8 MPa (IV). ANOVA revealed significant (P < 0.05) differences
in shear bond strength between groups, except comparison of Group I and II, and Group I
and IV. In the second part of the study 24 standardized class 2 cavity preparations with
the approximal box extending 1 mm above the CEJ were prepared in extracted human molars.
Enamel margins were beveled and the teeth were divided into four groups of six teeth each.
Cavities were restored using the self-etching priming agents Clearfil Liner Bond 2 (Group
I), Etch & Prime 3.0 (Group II), and Resulcin AquaPrime + MonoBond (Group III). In
Group IV composite resin restorations were placed after 37% phosphoric acid etching and
bonding application (Ecusit-Mono). Quantitative SEM analysis of the marginal adaptation of
the restorations after thermocycling (5-55 degrees C, 2500 cycles) and mechanical loading
(100 N, 500,000 cycles) revealed excellent, gap-free margins in 91.2% (Group I), 93.0%
(Group II), 92.0% (Group III), and 92.5% (Group IV) of the restorations' approximal area.
There were no statistically significant differences between the four groups (P <
0.05). In CONCLUSION: , results of the present in vitro study indicate that use of
self-etching primers may be an alternative to conventional phosphoric acid pre-treatment
in composite-to-enamel bonding restorative techniques.,
Collins, et al.-1998-A clinical evaluation of posterior composite
resin restorations: 8-year findings.-J Dent-26-311-7-
OBJECTIVES: From a continuing investigation of the clinical performance of three
different types of composite resin, the findings of the clinical evaluation at 8 years are
presented. METHODS: One operator placed 330 restorations in Class I and Class II
preparations in the posterior teeth of 72 patients. Every patient received at least one
restoration of each type of material: a microfilled composite, a small particle hybrid, a
relatively coarse particle hybrid, and an amalgam control. Restorations were evaluated
using clinical criteria. RESULTS: Forty six patients attended the 8-year recall.
Twenty-five of the 213 restorations (13.7% of the composites and 5.8% of the amalgams)
originally placed in these 46 patients had previously failed or been lost from the study
or were assessed as requiring replacement at the 8-year recall. Bulk fracture and
secondary caries at the margin were the most common forms of failure in the composite
restorations. Other failures or losses were associated with a non-margin defect in the
composite, caries not associated with the restoration, pulpal considerations, extraction
for orthodontics and reasons unknown. One-hundred and ninety-three restorations (including
five that required replacement) were available for clinical evaluation at 8 years and
these included 17 Class II restorations. Significantly fewer restorations placed with the
coarse particle hybrid exhibited evidence of marginal deterioration. CONCLUSION: : At 8
years, composite restorations in posterior teeth had failed at a rate two to three times
that of amalgam restorations. The most common types of failure were bulk fracture and
secondary caries at the margin.,
Rasmusson, et al.-1998-A 3-year clinical evaluation of two
composite resins in class-II cavities.-Acta Odontol Scand-56-70-5
- The purpose of this investigation was to study the clinical performance of a new
system with a proposed expanding liner for composite restorations introduced in the late
1980s. The present study reports on baseline data and the result after 3 years. One
hundred and four class-II cavities in 95 patients were alternatively restored by Superlux
Molar and the reference material P-50 APC by 12 general practitioners in 3 public dental
health clinics. After 3 years 82 restorations (79%) were available for examination. The
restorations were evaluated on the basis of USPHS criteria after 1 week and again after 3
years. Stone casts were used to quantitatively categorize wear in accordance with the
Leinfelder method. Color slides and bitewings were taken to supplement the clinical
evaluation of color match and marginal adaptation, respectively, and secondary caries. The
failure rate (USPHS rating, Charlie) was four restorations of Superlux Molar and seven of
P-50 APC. The average wear after 3 years of Superlux Molar was 131 microm and of P-50 APC,
128 microm. There were no statistically significant differences between the two materials
with regard to, for example, handling characteristics, anatomic form, color match,
marginal discoloration, or failures. A significantly higher wear rate was found after 3
years in patients with a high level of salivary lactobacilli (> 10(5)
colony-forming units (CFU)/mL at base line) compared with those with lower levels. This
suggests that an acidic environment might enhance the wear rate.,
Geurtsen and Schoeler-1997-A 4-year retrospective clinical study
of Class I and Class II composite restorations.-J Dent-25-229-32-
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the longevity and quality of
Class I and Class II resin composite (Herculite XR) restorations placed in private
practice.
METHODS: One thousand two hundred and nine Class I and Class II composite
restorations with margins in enamel were evaluated clinically after periods of between 12
months and 4.5 years in clinical service by two calibrated examiners using a modified
version of established criteria.
RESULTS: Of the restorations investigated 94.8% were
rated as 'good' (Alpha 79.3%) or 'clinically acceptable' (Bravo 15.5%). Significantly more
restorations in premolar teeth were rated as Alpha (82%) than in permanent molar teeth
(77%). The survival rate after 4 years was around 87%. The 50% survival-time, calculated
by extrapolation according to Weibull, was approximately 9 years.
CONCLUSION: It is
concluded that the composite investigated is an appropriate material for the restoration
of Class I and Class II lesions with margins located in enamel in premolar and permanent
molar teeth.

©2008-2013, Healthmantra.com. All Rights Reserved.
|