BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a clinical study to examine the effectiveness of treatments other than replacement for defective Class I and Class II resin-based composite (RBC) and amalgam (AM) restorations. METHODS: The authors recruited 66 patients (age range, 18-80 years) with 271 Classes I and II defective restorations (RBC = 78 and AM = 193). They assigned restorations to one of the following treatment groups on the basis of the type of defect: sealed margins (n = 48), repair (n = 27), refurbishment (n = 73), replacement (n = 42) or untreated (n = 81). They used modified U.S. Public Health Service/Ryge criteria to determine the quality of the restorations. Two examiners assessed the restorations independently at the beginning of the study and three years after treatment (Cohen's kappa = 0.74 at baseline and 0.82 at year 3). They used five parameters in assessing the restorations: marginal adaptation, anatomical form, surface roughness, secondary caries and luster. RESULTS: The authors assessed 237 restorations (RBC = 73, AM = 164) at the three-year recall examination. Restorations that underwent sealing of marginal defects exhibited significant improvements in marginal adaptation (P <or= .001). Restorations in the refurbishment group exhibited improvements in anatomical form (P <or= .005) and surface roughness (P <or= .001). Restorations in the repair group exhibited improvements with regard to anatomical form (P = .008). Replaced restorations exhibited improvements in all parameters (P < .05), while the untreated group experienced declines in all parameters (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that defective RBC and AM Class I and Class II restorations undergoing sealing of margins, repair or refurbishment exhibited improvements three years after treatment. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Marginal sealing or repair or refurbishment of anatomical form and roughness are conservative and simple procedures that increase the longevity of RBC and AM restorations with minimal intervention.
BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a clinical study to examine the effectiveness of treatments other than replacement for defective Class I and Class II resin-based composite (RBC) and amalgam (AM) restorations. METHODS: The authors recruited 66 patients (age range, 18-80 years) with 271 Classes I and II defective restorations (RBC = 78 and AM = 193). They assigned restorations to one of the following treatment groups on the basis of the type of defect: sealed margins (n = 48), repair (n = 27), refurbishment (n = 73), replacement (n = 42) or untreated (n = 81). They used modified U.S. Public Health Service/Ryge criteria to determine the quality of the restorations. Two examiners assessed the restorations independently at the beginning of the study and three years after treatment (Cohen's kappa = 0.74 at baseline and 0.82 at year 3). They used five parameters in assessing the restorations: marginal adaptation, anatomical form, surface roughness, secondary caries and luster. RESULTS: The authors assessed 237 restorations (RBC = 73, AM = 164) at the three-year recall examination. Restorations that underwent sealing of marginal defects exhibited significant improvements in marginal adaptation (P <or= .001). Restorations in the refurbishment group exhibited improvements in anatomical form (P <or= .005) and surface roughness (P <or= .001). Restorations in the repair group exhibited improvements with regard to anatomical form (P = .008). Replaced restorations exhibited improvements in all parameters (P < .05), while the untreated group experienced declines in all parameters (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that defective RBC and AM Class I and Class II restorations undergoing sealing of margins, repair or refurbishment exhibited improvements three years after treatment. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Marginal sealing or repair or refurbishment of anatomical form and roughness are conservative and simple procedures that increase the longevity of RBC and AM restorations with minimal intervention.
Authors: Valeria V Gordan; Joseph L Riley; Saulo Geraldeli; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Jeffrey L Fellows; H Paul Kellum; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Jo E Frencken; Mathilde C Peters; David J Manton; Soraya C Leal; Valeria V Gordan; Ece Eden Journal: Int Dent J Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 2.607
Authors: Mohammad O Sharif; Melanie Catleugh; Alison Merry; Martin Tickle; Stephen M Dunne; Paul Brunton; Vishal R Aggarwal; Lee Yee Chong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-02-08