R Hickel1, J Manhart, F García-Godoy. 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.
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.
Authors: R Hickel; J-F Roulet; S Bayne; S D Heintze; I A Mjör; M Peters; V Rousson; R Randall; G Schmalz; M Tyas; G Vanherle Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2007-01-30 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: D Khvostenko; S Salehi; S E Naleway; T J Hilton; J L Ferracane; J C Mitchell; J J Kruzic Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Norbert Krämer; Mandy Möhwald; Susanne Lücker; Eugen Domann; José I Zorzin; Martin Rosentritt; Roland Frankenberger Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Y Li; C Carrera; R Chen; J Li; P Lenton; J D Rudney; R S Jones; C Aparicio; A Fok Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 8.947