Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Dent. 2000 Nov;13(Spec No):41D-54D.

Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations.

Author information

1
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. hickel@dent.med.uni-muenchen.de

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To (1) review the literature and analyze the longevity and reasons for failure of direct resin-based composite (RBC), amalgam, and glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities and (2) to assess new material developments and treatment techniques to restore these cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This work reviewed the dental literature predominately of the last decade for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies. Only studies investigating the clinical performance of restorations in permanent teeth were included. Annual failure rates of direct resin-based composite, amalgam, and GIC restorations were determined and failure reasons were discussed.

RESULTS:

Annual failure rates in posterior stress-bearing cavities were determined to be: 0-9% for direct RBC restorations, 0-7% for amalgam restorations, and 1.9-14.4% for GIC restorations. The median annual failure rate of longitudinal studies for amalgam was calculated with 1.1%, for RBCs 2.1% and for GICs 7.7%. GIC is significantly worse compared with amalgam and RBC. Main reasons for failure were secondary caries, marginal deficiencies, fracture, and wear. Longitudinal studies showed a strong trend towards a higher longevity compared with cross-sectional investigations.

PMID:
11763918
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center