Literature DB >> 19504133

Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up.

Jan W V van Dijken1, Ulla Pallesen.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture frequency and longevity of fractured class IV resin composite (RC), polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer; PMRC), and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorations in a longitudinal long-term follow-up. Eighty-five class IV RC (43: Pekafil), PMRC (24: Dyract (D), Hytac (H)), and RMGIC (18: Fuji II LC (F), Photac Fil (P)) restorations were placed in ongoing longitudinal follow-ups in 45 patients (mean age 54.5 years). The restorations were evaluated during 14 years by slightly modified USPHS criteria at yearly recalls especially for their fracture behavior. For all restorations, 36.5% were fractured, with a Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate of 8.8 years (standard error (SE) 0.5, confidence interval (CI) 7.9-9.8). The number of fractures per material was 11 RC (25.6%; KM 9.9 years, CI 8.7-11.0), 13 PMRC (54.2%; D 66.6%; H 50.0%; KM 7.5 years, CI 5.8-9.2), and seven RMGIC (36.5%; F 22.2%, P 71.4%; KM 6.9 years, CI 7.9-9.8). Significant differences were seen between RC and PMRC (p = 0.043). A significant higher fracture rate was observed in teeth 12 + 22 compared to teeth 11 + 21. No significant differences were observed between male and female patients. Restorations in bruxing patients (45) showed 22 fractures (KM 8 years; CI 6.9-9.3) and in non-bruxing patients (39) nine fractures (KM 9.9 years, CI 8.7-11.1; p = 0.017). With regard to the longevity of the replaced failed restorations, for RC, the mean age was 4.5 years; for PMRC, 4.3 years; and for RMGIC, 3.3 years. It can be concluded that fracture was the main reason for failure of class IV restorations. An improved longevity was observed for class IV restorations compared to those presented in earlier studies. RC restorations showed the lowest failure frequency and the highest longevity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19504133     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0287-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  27 in total

1.  Five year evaluation of class III composite resin restorations in cavities pre-treated with an oxalic- or a phosphoric acid conditioner.

Authors:  J W van Dijken; A L Olofsson; C Holm
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.837

2.  Longevity of new hybrid restorative materials in class III cavities.

Authors:  J W van Dijken
Journal:  Eur J Oral Sci       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.612

3.  Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements.

Authors:  A D Wilson
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.681

4.  Clinically controlled study on the quality of class III, IV and V composite restorations after two years.

Authors:  Birgit Geitel; Ralf Kwiatkowski; Stefan Zimmer; Claudia R Barthel; Jean-François Roulet; Klaus-Roland Jahn
Journal:  J Adhes Dent       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  Three-year evaluation of effect of surface conditioning on bonding of glass ionomer cement in cervical abrasion lesions.

Authors:  J van Dijken
Journal:  Scand J Dent Res       Date:  1992-04

6.  Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden.

Authors:  Karin Sunnegårdh-Grönberg; Jan W V van Dijken; Ulrika Funegård; Anders Lindberg; Mats Nilsson
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2009-05-04       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Long-term survival and cost-effectiveness of five dental restorative materials used in various classes of cavity preparations.

Authors:  R J Smales; W S Hawthorne
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.512

8.  A prospective study of the survival of chemically activated anterior resin composite restorations in general dental practice: 5-year results.

Authors:  R van Noort; L G Davis
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  The age of restorations in situ.

Authors:  A Jokstad; I A Mjör; V Qvist
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 2.331

10.  Effects of enamel-bonding, type of restoration, patient age and operator on the longevity of an anterior composite resin.

Authors:  R J Smales
Journal:  Am J Dent       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 1.522

View more
  12 in total

1.  Commentary on two reviews of anterior composite restorations.

Authors:  Ben Balevi
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2016-10

2.  Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations.

Authors:  Sabine O Geerts; Laurence Seidel; Adelin I Albert; Audrey M Gueders
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2010-06-06

3.  A prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth of children and adolescents in Public Dental Health Service: reasons for replacement.

Authors:  Ulla Pallesen; Jan W V van Dijken; Jette Halken; Anna-Lena Hallonsten; Ruth Höigaard
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Effect of polymerisation and ageing on the incremental bond strength of ormocer-based dental materials.

Authors:  Daniel Awad; Nicoleta Ilie
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Is composite repair suitable for anterior restorations? A long-term practice-based clinical study.

Authors:  Françoise H van de Sande; Rafael R Moraes; Raquel V Elias; Anelise F Montagner; Paulo A Rodolpho; Flávio F Demarco; Maximiliano S Cenci
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  How mobile are protons in the structure of dental glass ionomer cements?

Authors:  Ana R Benetti; Johan Jacobsen; Benedict Lehnhoff; Niels C R Momsen; Denis V Okhrimenko; Mark T F Telling; Nikolay Kardjilov; Markus Strobl; Tilo Seydel; Ingo Manke; Heloisa N Bordallo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  The causes of failure and the longevity of direct coronal restorations: A survey among dental surgeons of the town of Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.

Authors:  Marie-Chantal Avoaka-Boni; Stéphane X Djolé; Wendpoulomdé Aimé Désiré Kaboré; Yolande N D Gnagne-Koffi; Alexandra F E Koffi
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2019 May-Jun

8.  Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth?

Authors:  Allegra Comba; Andrea Baldi; Carlo Massimo Saratti; Giovanni Tommaso Rocca; Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres; Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira; Felipe Luiz Valandro; Nicola Scotti
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 3.606

9.  Porosity and pore size distribution in high-viscosity and conventional glass ionomer cements: a micro-computed tomography study.

Authors:  Aline Borburema Neves; Laísa Inara Gracindo Lopes; Tamiris Gomes Bergstrom; Aline Saddock Sá da Silva; Ricardo Tadeu Lopes; Aline de Almeida Neves
Journal:  Restor Dent Endod       Date:  2021-10-29

Review 10.  Dental Restorative Materials for Elderly Populations.

Authors:  Yuyao Huang; Bingqing Song; Xuedong Zhou; Hui Chen; Haohao Wang; Lei Cheng
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 4.329

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.