Journal of Dentistry
Volume 34, Issue 7 , Pages 427-435 , August 2006

A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings

  • Paulo Antônio da Rosa Rodolpho

      Affiliations

    • Private Practice, Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil
    • ,
  • Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci

      Affiliations

    • Graduate Program in Dentistry, Cariology Area, Faculty of Dentistry of Piracicaba, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
    • ,
  • Tiago Aurélio Donassollo

      Affiliations

    • Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
    • ,
  • Alessandro Dourado Loguércio

      Affiliations

    • Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Oeste of Santa Catarina, Joaçaba, SC, Brazil
    • ,
  • Flávio Fernando Demarco

      Affiliations

    • Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Present address: Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, UFPel, rua Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 5° andar, CEP 96015 560, Pelotas, RS, Brazil. Tel.: +55 53 32224439; fax: +55 53 32255581.

Received 28 June 2005 ,Revised 13 September 2005 ,Accepted 20 September 2005.

References 

  1. Köhler B, Rasmusson C-G, Ödman P. A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. Journal of Dentistry. 2000;28:111–116
  2. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, Berlin JS, Clelland N. Fracture toughness of packable and conventional composite materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2002;88:307–313
  3. Wilson NH. The evaluation of materials: relationships between laboratory investigations and clinical studies. Operative Dentistry. 1990;15:149–155
  4. Chadwick B, Treasure E, Dummer P, Dunstan F, Gilmour A, Jones R, et al. Challenges with studies investigating longevity of dental restorations-a critique of a systematic review. Journal of Dentisry. 2001;29:155–161
  5. Sakaguchi RL. Review of the current status and challenges for dental posterior restorative composites: clinical, chemistry, and physical behavior considerations. Summary of discussion from the Portland Composites Symposium (POCOS) June 17–19, 2004, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. Dental Materials 2005;21:3–6.
  6. Shimizu T, Kitano T, Inoue M, Narikawa K, Fujii B. Ten-year longitudinal clinical evaluation of a visible light cured posterior composite resin. Dental Materials Journal. 1995;14:120–134
  7. Nordbo H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR. Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence International. 1998;29:5–11
  8. Mair LH. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence International. 1998;29:483–490
  9. Collins CJ, Bryant RW, Hodge KL. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. Journal of Dentistry. 1998;26:311–317
  10. Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson NH. Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report. Journal of Dentistry. 1999;27:13–19
  11. Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NH. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2000;4:148–152
  12. Lundin SA, Koch G. Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swedish Dental Journal. 1999;23:165–171
  13. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2001;3:185–194
  14. Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence International. 2003;34:418–426
  15. Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2003;7:71–79
  16. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R, Gaebler P. Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations—a 10-year report. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2004;31:991–1000
  17. Wilder AD, May KN, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations. Journal of Esthetic Dentistry. 1999;11:135–142
  18. Leinfelder KF, McCartha CD, Wisniewski JF. Posterior composite resin—a critical review. Journal of American Dental Association. 1985;69:19–24
  19. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2003;7:63–70
  20. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Operative Dentistry. 2004;29:481–508
  21. Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NHF. A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Operative Dentistry. 2002;27:423–429
  22. Baratieri LN, Ritter AV. Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2001;13:50–57
  23. Lutz E, Krejci I, Oldenburg TR. Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite resin restorations: a new restorative technique. Quintessence International. 1986;17:777–784
  24. Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses?. Journal of Dental Research. 1996;75:871–878
  25. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of American Statistical Association. 1958;53:457–481
  26. Anderson S, Auquier A, Hauck WW, Oakes D, Vandaele W, Weisberg HI. Statistical methods for comparative studies. Techniques for bias reduction. New York: John Wiley; 1980;p. 202–4
  27. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence International. 1993;24:641–658
  28. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Evaluation of clinical performance for posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives. Operative Dentistry. 1987;12:53–78
  29. Rasmusson CG, Lundin SA. Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results. Swedish Dental Journal. 1995;19:173–182
  30. Rezwani-Kaminski T, Kamann W, Gaengler P. Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long-term performing composite restorations. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2002;29:1131–1138
  31. Jokstad A, Bayne S, Blunck U, Tyas M, Wilson N. Quality of dental restorations—FDI Commission Project 2-95. International Dental Journal. 2001;51:117–158
  32. Moffa JP. Comparative performance of amalgam and composite resin restorations and criteria for their use. In:  Anusavice K editors. Quality evaluation of dental restorations. Chicago: Quintessence; 1989;p. 125–133
  33. Wilson NH, Wilson MA, Wastell DG, Smith GA. A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative material: five-year results. Quintessence International. 1988;19:675–681
  34. Mondelli J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A, de Lima Navarro MF, Soares FB. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1980;43:419–422
  35. Wilson NH, Wastell DG, Norman RD. Five-year performance of high-copper content amalgam restorations in a multiclinical trial of a posterior composite. Journal of Dentistry. 1996;24:203–210
  36. Kreulen CM, Tobi H, Gruythuysen RJ, van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PJ. Replacement risk of amalgam treatment modalities: 15-year results. Journal of Dentistry. 1998;26:627–632
  37. Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. 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 International. 1999;30:234–242
  38. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Operative Dentistry. 2002;27:117–123
  39. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Operative Dentistry. 2003;28:215–235
  40. Preston AJ, Higham SM, Agalamanyi EA, Mair LH. Fluoride recharge of aesthetic dental materials. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 1999;26:936–940
  41. Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR. Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Operative Dentistry. 2002;27:488–492
  42. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dental Materials. 2005;21:9–20
  43. Barnes DM, Holston AM, Strassler HE, Shires PJ. Evaluation of clinical performance of twelve posterior composite resins with a standardized placement technique. Journal of Esthetic Dentistry. 1990;2(2):36–43
  44. Turkun SL. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years. Journal of Dentistry. 2003;31(8):527–534
  45. Turkun LS, Turkun M, Ozata F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. Journal of American Dental Association. 2003;134(9):1205–1212
  46. Busato AL, Loguercio AD, Reis A, de Oliveira Carrilho MR. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results. American Journal of Dentistry. 2001;14(5):304–308

PII: S0300-5712(05)00181-8

doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.006

Journal of Dentistry
Volume 34, Issue 7 , Pages 427-435 , August 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution