Literature DB >> 20230962

The longevity of direct and indirect posterior restorations is uncertain and may be affected by a number of dentist-, patient-, and material-related factors.

Gary R Goldstein1.   

Abstract

SELECTION CRITERIA: Information pertaining to how the studies were located and selected was very limited. The authors did state that they reviewed the "dental literature predominately from 1990" that reported on clinical studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up and at least an N of 10 at-risk restorations at the last recall. KEY STUDY FACTOR: Although a number of important study factors were identified that could potentially impact posterior restoration survival, such as secondary caries, incorrect manipulation of the materials, or material fracture, no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria were identified that were applied across all studies reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: This review concentrated on the longevity of restorations on posterior teeth subject to occlusal forces. The main outcome measure was survival of the restoration. Where applicable, measures of cause (secondary caries, marginal adaptation, fracture, wear, and so forth) were reported. MAIN
RESULTS: There were 42 amalgam studies, 51 direct composite, 5 direct composite with inserts, 7 compomer, 6 glass ionomer, 7 GI tunnel restorations, 6 GI ART restorations, 20 composite inlays and onlays, 36 laboratory-fabricated ceramic inlays and onlays, 20 CAD-CAM ceramic inlays and onlays, and 19 cast gold inlays and onlays. The values reported for annual failure rate were calculated for mean, median, and standard deviation for each material. Mean (SD) annual failure rates for posterior stress-bearing cavities were as follows: 3.0% (1.9%) for amalgam restorations, 2.2% (2.0%) for direct composites, 3.6% (4.2%) for direct composites with inserts, 1.1% (1.2%) for compomer restorations, 7.2% (5.6%) for regular glass ionomer restorations, 7.1% (2.8%) for tunnel glass ionomers, 6.0% (4.6%) for ART glass ionomers, 2.9% (2.6%) for composite inlays, 1.9% (1.8%) for ceramic restorations, 1.7% (1.6%) for CAD/CAM ceramic restorations, and 1.4%(1.4%) for cast gold inlays and onlays.
CONCLUSIONS: "Longevity of dental restorations is dependent upon many different factors, including materials-, patient- and dentist-related factors." "Principal reasons for failure were secondary caries, fracture, marginal deficiencies, wear, and postoperative sensitivity. We need to learn to distinguish between reasons that cause early failures and those that are responsible for restoration loss after several years of service."

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 20230962     DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evid Based Dent Pract        ISSN: 1532-3382            Impact factor:   5.267


  8 in total

1.  Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces-a massive data analysis.

Authors:  Michael Raedel; Andrea Hartmann; Steffen Bohm; Heinz-Werner Priess; Stefanie Samietz; Ioannis Konstantinidis; Michael H Walter
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Success rates of manual restorative treatment (MRT) with amalgam in permanent teeth in high caries-risk Filipino children.

Authors:  I M Schüler; B Monse; C J Holmgren; T Lehmann; G S Itchon; R Heinrich-Weltzien
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Michael S McCracken; Valeria V Gordan; Mark S Litaker; Ellen Funkhouser; Jeffrey L Fellows; Douglass G Shamp; Vibeke Qvist; Jeffrey S Meral; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.634

4.  The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN.

Authors:  Valeria V Gordan; Joseph Riley; Saulo Geraldeli; O Dale Williams; Joseph C Spoto; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Effects of pulp capping materials on fracture resistance of Class II composite restorations.

Authors:  Ebru Kucukyilmaz; Bilal Yasa; Merve Akcay; Selcuk Savas; Fevzi Kavrik
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

6.  An auxiliary factor for increasing the retention of short abutments.

Authors:  Fendi AlShaarani; Rami M Alaisami; Loai Aljerf; Issam A Jamous; Kanaan Elias; Anas Jaber
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2019-10-21

7.  Practice-based analysis of direct posterior dental restorations performed in a public health service: Retrospective long-term survival in Brazil.

Authors:  Renata Afonso da Silva Pereira; Gisele Rodrigues da Silva; Luciana Mendes Barcelos; Karoline Guará Brusaca Almeida Cavalcanti; Álex Moreira Herval; Thiago Machado Ardenghi; Carlos José Soares
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations.

Authors:  Kyou-Li Kim; Cheol Namgung; Byeong-Hoon Cho
Journal:  Restor Dent Endod       Date:  2013-02-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.