Clinical Effectiveness of Direct Class II Restorations - A Meta-Analysis

The journal of adhesive dentistry (Impact Factor: 1.44). 10/2012; 14(5):407-31. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a28390
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Purpose: More than five hundred million direct dental restorations are placed each year worldwide. In about 55% of the cases, resin composites or compomers are used, and in 45% amalgam. The longevity of posterior resin restorations is well documented. However, data on resin composites that are placed without enamel/dentin conditioning and resin composites placed with self-etching adhesive systems are missing. Material and Methods: The database SCOPUS was searched for clinical trials on posterior resin composites without restricting the search to the year of publication. The inclusion criteria were: (1) prospective clinical trial with at least 2 years of observation; (2) minimum number of restorations at last recall = 20; (3) report on dropout rate; (4) report of operative technique and materials used; (5) utilization of Ryge or modified Ryge evaluation criteria. For amalgam, only those studies were included that directly compared composite resin restorations with amalgam. For the statistical analysis, a linear mixed model was used with random effects to account for the heterogeneity between the studies. P-values under 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 373 clinical trials, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 70% of the studies, Class II and Class I restorations had been placed. The overall success rate of composite resin restorations was about 90% after 10 years, which was not different from that of amalgam. Restorations with compomers had a significantly lower longevity. The main reason for replacement were bulk fractures and caries adjacent to restorations. Both of these incidents were infrequent in most studies and accounted only for about 6% of all replaced restorations after 10 years. Restorations with macrofilled composites and compomer suffered significantly more loss of anatomical form than restorations with other types of material. Restorations that were placed without enamel acid etching and a dentin bonding agent showed significantly more marginal staining and detectable margins compared to those restorations placed using the enamel-etch or etch-and-rinse technique; restorations with self-etching systems were between the other groups. Restorations with compomer suffered significantly more chippings (repairable fracture) than restorations with other materials, which did not statistically differ among each other. Restorations that were placed with a rubber-dam showed significantly fewer material fractures that needed replacement, and this also had a significant effect on the overall longevity. Conclusion: Restorations with hybrid and microfilled composites that were placed with the enamel-etching technique and rubber-dam showed the best overall performance; the longevity of these restorations was similar to amalgam restorations. Compomer restorations, restorations placed with macrofilled composites, and resin restorations with no-etching or self-etching adhesives demonstrated significant shortcomings and shorter longevity.

Download full-text


Available from: Siegward Heintze, May 06, 2015
  • Source
    • "Inferior bonding and resin composite shrinkage resulted in lack of adaptation to the cavity walls, and as a consequence, an increased susceptibility to caries and high frequency of postoperative symptoms was expected [8]. Secondary caries has been the main reason for replacement of restorative materials as reported in cross sectional and prospective studies [5] [8] [9]. Dental restorations do have a limited lifespan and replacement of a failed restoration leads to increase of cavity size and destruction of tooth tissues [10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this 30 year randomized controlled study was to evaluate, by intraindividual comparisons, the durability of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Each of 30 participants, 21 female and 9 male (mean age 30 years, range 20-43), received at least three (one set) as similar as possible Class II restorations of moderate size. After cavity preparation, the three cavities were chosen at random to be restored with two chemical-cured (P10, Miradapt) and one light-cured resin composite (P30). A chemical-cured enamel bonding agent was applied after etching of the enamel. The chemical-cured resin composites were placed in bulk and the light-cured in increments. One operator placed 99 restorations (33 sets). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years. Statistical analyses were performed by the Kaplan-Meier, log-rank test and Cox regression analyses. After 30 years, 5 participants with 15 restorations (15%) could not be evaluated during the whole evaluation. Seven participants were considered as caries risk and eight participants as having active parafunctional habits. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 24 teeth. In total 28 restorations, 9 P10, 12 P30 and 7 Miradapt restorations failed during the 30 years. The main reasons for failure were secondary caries (39.2%) and material fracture (35.7%). Sixty-four percent of the secondary caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants and 70% of the material fractures occurred in participants with active parafunctional habits. The overall success rate at 30 years was 63%, with an annual failure rate of 1.1%. 68-81% of the restorations showed non-acceptable color match. No statistical significant difference in survival rate was found between the three resin composites (p=0.45). The variables tooth type, cavity size, age, and gender of the participants did not significantly affect the probability of failure. The three conventional resin composites showed good clinical performance during the 30 year evaluation. The chemical cured resin composites showed better performance than the light-cured composite. Copyright © 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 08/2015; DOI:10.1016/ · 4.16 Impact Factor
    • "These outcomes may be the reason why common causes of restoration failure include bulk fracture of the RBC, secondary caries due to adhesive failure between the tooth and RBC, and breakdown of the margin (Bernardo et al. 2007; Opdam et al. 2007; Sunnegardh- Gronberg et al. 2009; Overton and Sullivan 2012; Rasines Alcaraz et al. 2014). The use of RBCs is increasing (Heintze and Rousson 2012) and will continue to increase with the worldwide phasedown in the use of amalgam (Federation FDI 2014). Although dental "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For improved interstudy reproducibility, reduced risk of premature failures, and ultimately better patient care, researchers and dentists need to know how to accurately characterize the electromagnetic radiation (light) they are delivering to the resins they are using. The output from a light-curing unit (LCU) is commonly characterized by its irradiance. If this value is measured at the light tip, it describes the radiant exitance from the surface of the light tip, and not the irradiance received by the specimen. The value quoted also reflects only an averaged value over the total measurement area and does not represent the irradiance that the resin specimen is receiving locally or at a different moment in time. Recent evidence has reported that the spectral emission and radiant exitance beam profiles from LCUs can be highly inhomogeneous. This can cause nonuniform temperature changes and uneven photopolymerization within the resin restoration. The spectral radiant power can be very different between different brands of LCUs, and the use of irradiance values derived from dental radiometers to describe the output from an LCU for research purposes is discouraged. Manufacturers should provide more information about the light output from the LCU and the absorption spectrum of their resin-based composite (RBC). Ideally, future assessments and research publications should include the following information about the curing light: 1) radiant power output throughout the exposure cycle and the spectral radiant power as a function of wavelength, 2) analysis of the light beam profile and spectral emission across the light beam, and 3) measurement and reporting of the light the RBC specimen received as well as the output measured at the light tip. © International & American Associations for Dental Research 2015.
    Journal of dental research 07/2015; DOI:10.1177/0022034515594786 · 4.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Also, the use of composite resin can reinforce the remaining tooth structure, which is not possible with non-adhesive materials [3]. The esthetic appearance, limited cost involved and acceptable annual failure rates between 1 and 3% [4] [5] are other advantages of resin composite restorations. Nonetheless, methacrylate-based composites present inherent characteristics, such as polymerization shrinkage and stress [6], which may lead to tissue deflection and microleakage [7] [8]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advantages and disadvantages of using intermediate layers underneath resin-composite restorations have been presented under different perspectives. Yet, few long-term clinical studies evaluated the effect of glass-ionomer bases on restoration survival. The present study investigated the influence of glass-ionomer-cement base in survival of posterior composite restorations, compared to restorations without base. Original datasets of one dental practice were used to retrieve data retrospectively. The presence or absence of an intermediate layer of glass-ionomer-cement was the main factor under analysis, considering survival, annual failure rate and types of failure as outcomes. Other investigated factors were: patient gender, jaw, tooth, number of restored surfaces and composite. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox-regression. In total 632 restorations in 97 patients were investigated. Annual failure rates percentages up to 18-years were 1.9% and 2.1% for restorations with and without base, respectively. In restorations with glass-ionomer-cement base, fracture was the predominant reason for failure, corresponding to 57.8% of total failures. Failure type distribution was different (p=0.007) comparing restorations with and without base, but no effect in the overall survival of restorations was found (p=0.313). The presence of a glass-ionomer-cement base did not affect the survival of resin-composite restorations in the investigated sample. Acceptable annual failure rates after 18-years can be achieved with both techniques, leading to the perspective that an intermediate layer, placed during an interim treatment, may be maintained without clinical detriment, but no improvement in survival should be expected based on such measure. Copyright © 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 04/2015; 31(6). DOI:10.1016/ · 4.16 Impact Factor
Show more