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

Department of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.



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.


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.


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.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center