N.J.M. Opdam

Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials

Resin composites have become the first choice for direct posterior restorations and are increasingly popular among clinicians and patients. Meanwhile, a number of clinical reports in the literature have discussed the durability of these restorations over long periods. In this review, we have searched the dental literature looking for clinical trials investigating posterior composite restorations over periods of at least 5 years of follow-up published between 1996 and 2011. The search resulted in 34 selected studies. 90% of the clinical studies indicated that annual failure rates between 1% and 3% can be achieved with Class I and II posterior composite restorations depending on several factors such as tooth type and location, operator, and socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral elements. The material properties showed a minor effect on longevity. The main reasons for failure in the long term are secondary caries, related to the individual caries risk, and fracture, related to the presence of a lining or the strength of the material used as well as patient factors such as bruxism. Repair is a viable alternative to replacement, and it can increase significantly the lifetime of restorations. As observed in the literature reviewed, a long survival rate for posterior composite restorations can be expected provided that patient, operator and materials factors are taken into account when the restorations are performed.

12-year Survival of Composite vs. Amalgam Restorations

Information about the long-term clinical survival of large amalgam and composite restorations is still lacking. This retrospective study compares the longevity of three- and four-/five-surface amalgam and composite restorations relative to patients’ caries risk. Patient records from a general practice were used for data collection. We evaluated 1949 large class II restorations (1202 amalgam/747 composite). Dates of placement, replacement, and failure were recorded, and caries risk of patients was assessed. Survival was calculated from Kaplan-Meier statistics. After 12 years, 293 amalgam and 114 composite restorations had failed. Large composite restorations showed a higher survival in the combined population and in the low-risk group. For three-surface restorations in high-risk patients, amalgam showed better survival.

22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics

OBJECTIVES This retrospective longitudinal study investigated the longevity of posterior restorations placed in a single general practice using 2 different composites in filler characteristics and material properties: P-50 APC (3M ESPE) with 70vol.% inorganic filler loading (midfilled) and Herculite XR (Kerr) with 55vol.% filler loading (minifilled). METHODS Patient records were used for collecting data. Patients with at least 2 posterior composite restorations placed between 1986 and 1990, and still in the practice for regular check-up visits, were selected. 61 patients (20 male, 41 female, age 31.2-65.1) presenting 362 restorations (121 Class I, 241 Class II) placed using a closed sandwich technique were evaluated by 2 operators using the FDI criteria. Data were analyzed with Fishers exact test, Kaplan-Meier statistics, and Cox regression analysis (p<0.05). RESULTS 110 failures were detected. Similar survival rates for both composites were observed considering the full period of observation; better performance for the midfilled was detected considering the last 12 years. There was higher probability of failure in molars and for multi-surface restorations. SIGNIFICANCE Both evaluated composites showed good clinical performance over 22 years with 1.5% (midfilled) and 2.2% (minifilled) annual failure rate. Superior longevity for the higher filler loaded composite (midfilled) was observed in the second part of the observation period with constant annual failure rate between 10 years and 20 years, whereas the minifilled material showed an increase in annual failure rate between 10 years and 20 years, suggesting that physical properties of the composite may have some impact on restoration longevity.

Longevity of Posterior Composite Restorations A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis, based on individual participant data from several studies, was to investigate the influence of patient-, materials-, and tooth-related variables on the survival of posterior resin composite restorations. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a search resulting in 12 longitudinal studies of direct posterior resin composite restorations with at least 5 years’ follow-up. Original datasets were still available, including placement/failure/censoring of restorations, restored surfaces, materials used, reasons for clinical failure, and caries-risk status. A database including all restorations was constructed, and a multivariate Cox regression method was used to analyze variables of interest [patient (age; gender; caries-risk status), jaw (upper; lower), number of restored surfaces, resin composite and adhesive materials, and use of glass-ionomer cement as base/liner (present or absent)]. The hazard ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals were determined, and annual failure rates were calculated for subgroups. Of all restorations, 2,816 (2,585 Class II and 231 Class I) were included in the analysis, of which 569 failed during the observation period. Main reasons for failure were caries and fracture. The regression analyses showed a significantly higher risk of failure for restorations in high-caries-risk individuals and those with a higher number of restored surfaces.

Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo

INTRODUCTION Problems that may arise in resin composite Class 2 restorations include microleakage and postoperative sensitivity. However, limited in-vivo research is conducted to evaluate these processes. AIM The aim of this study was to assess postoperative sensitivity, microleakage and the pooling of adhesives in relation to Class 2 box-type composite restorations placed in vivo using various adhesive systems and application techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred and forty-four Class 2 box restorations were placed in the mesial and distal surfaces of 72 premolar teeth in-vivo using one of three combinations of adhesive systems and three filling techniques. After 6 weeks of clinical service postoperative sensitivity was recorded. The teeth were then extracted, immersed in a dye solution and sectioned. Microleakage and pooling of the adhesive was recorded. Statistical analysis involved logistic regression and chi2 tests to identify differences between groups at p < 0.05. RESULTS Of the 144 restorations, 65 showed minimal cervical leakage in enamel, 5 suffered leakage into dentin and 74 were free of microleakage. No statistically significant differences were found in cervical microleakage between the adhesive systems or between filling procedures. Occlusal microleakage in the enamel was present in 16 of the 160 restorations. Liner Bond 2 restorations leaked significantly more at the occlusal surface (p < 0.05). Pooling of the adhesive was significantly less when PhotoBond was used. No spontaneous postoperative sensitivity was reported. Twenty-eight restorations were sensitive to loading. Postoperative sensitivity was significantly less in patients with Liner Bond 2 restorations. CONCLUSIONS The adhesive systems used in this study showed minimal leakage into dentin in vivo. Using Liner Bond 2, restorations exhibited more occlusal leakage but were significantly less sensitive to loading.

Patient Risk Factors’ Influence on Survival of Posterior Composites

This practice-based retrospective study evaluated the survival of resin composite restorations in posterior teeth, focusing on the influence of potential patient risk factors. In total, 306 posterior composite restorations placed in 44 adult patients were investigated after 10 to 18 yrs. The history of each restoration was extracted from the dental records, and a clinical evaluation was performed with those still in situ. The patient risk status was assessed for caries and “occlusal-stress” (bruxism-related). Statistical analysis was performed by the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox-regression multivariate analysis. In total, 30% of the restorations failed, of which 82% were found in patients with 1 or 2 risk factors. Secondary caries was the main reason of failure within caries-risk patients, whereas fracture was the main reason in “occlusal-stress-risk” patients. The patient variables gender and age did not significantly affect survival, but risk did (p < .001). Tooth type (p < .001), arch (p = .013), and pulpal vitality (p = .003) significantly affected restoration survival. Within the limits of this retrospective evaluation, the survival of restorations is affected by patient risk factors, which should be included in survival analyses of restorations.

Consistency of resin composites for posterior use

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare a large set of resin composites suitable for application in stress-bearing areas on the basis of their consistency. METHODS A variety of posterior resin composites were tested using an apparatus that was originally designed for determination of the consistency of elastomeric impression materials (ISO 4823, 1992). The consistency of a standardized volume of resin composite was tested in a dark room at 23 degrees C by loading the samples during 60 s with 1625 g. After loading, the circumference of each sample was determined by a digitizer. Results were analyzed using Tukey-HSD multiple comparisons test and Students t-tests. RESULTS The consistency of different brands of composites varied considerably. P50 was the material with the thinnest consistency. Significant differences (p < 0.05) in consistency were found between the same brands of material which were applied directly out of the syringe or out of a preloaded tip. Loading a Centrix tip with one composite out of a syringe resulted in a thinner consistency of the material than when taken directly from the syringe. SIGNIFICANCE A ranking of posterior resin composites is presented to enable a material selection based on consistency.

NECESSITY OF BEVELS FOR BOX ONLY CLASS II COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS

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. CONCLUSIONS Tooth preparation of a bevel is recommended for an optimal marginal seal in small box-type Class II composite restorations.

Seven-year Clinical Evaluation of Painful Cracked Teeth Restored with a Direct Composite Restoration

The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term clinical effectiveness of treating painful cracked teeth with a direct bonded composite resin restoration. The hypothesis tested was that cracked teeth treated with or without cuspal coverage showed the same performance. Forty-one patients attended a dental practice with a painful cracked tooth that was restored with a direct composite resin restoration. Twenty teeth were restored without and 21 with cuspal coverage. After 7 years, 40 teeth could be evaluated. Three teeth without cuspal coverage needed an endodontic treatment, of which 2 failed as a result of fracture. No significant differences were found for tooth or pulp survival. Three more repairable restoration failures were recorded. Mean annual failure rate of restorations without cuspal coverage was 6%; no failures in restorations with cuspal coverage occurred (P = .009). A direct bonded composite resin restoration can be a successful treatment for a cracked tooth.

Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure

OBJECTIVE In this study the literature was systematically reviewed to investigate the clinical longevity of anterior composite restorations. DATA Clinical studies investigating the survival of anterior light-cured composite restorations with at least three years of follow-up were screened and main reasons associated with restoration failure were registered. SOURCES PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched without restriction on date or language. Reference lists of eligible studies were hand-searched. The grey literature search was not made systematically. STUDY SELECTION Two reviewers screened titles and/or abstracts of 2273 unique studies. In total, 41 studies were selected for full-text reading, from which 17 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The included studies evaluated the clinical performance of Class III and/or IV restorations (10 studies), which were placed due to caries, fracture, or replaced old restorations; veneers and full-coverage restorations placed for aesthetic reasons (five studies); and restorations in worn teeth (two studies). Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated for each study. CONCLUSIONS In total, 1821 restorations were evaluated and the total failure rate was 24.1%. AFRs varied from 0 to 4.1% and survival rates varied from 53.4% to 100%. Class III restorations generally had lower AFRs than the other restorations. Few studies addressed factors associated with failure, which included adhesive technique, composite resin, retreatment risk, and time required to build-up the restoration. Fracture of tooth/restoration was the most common reason for failure, whereas failures related to aesthetic qualities (color, anatomical form, surface stain) were more frequent when restorations were placed for aesthetic reasons.