Literature DB >> 2407659

Longevity of posterior restorations.

I A Mjör1, A Jokstad, V Qvist.   

Abstract

The efficacy of restorative dentistry is dependent on a number of factors, including material quality, operator proficiency and the oral hygiene of the patient. The sum effect of all factors can be measured by recording the longevity of the restorations. Many studies focus on the age of restorations at the time of failure, others include the longevity of restorations which remain in situ. The surveys may be either longitudinal, prospective or retrospective, or cross-sectional retrospective studies of dental records. They are all hampered by the lack of uniform criteria defining when to place and replace restorations and by variations in decision-making between clinicians. The present review paper shows that the longevity of amalgam restorations has been studied most frequently. About 50 per cent of all amalgam restorations exceed 8-10 years in age, cast gold restorations may last longer and multisurfaced composite restorations have a shorter life-span. Glass ionomer cements lack the physical properties needed for large posterior restorations. The results of detailed longevity studies should be the basis for selection of materials and techniques in operative/conservative treatment. The cost of dental treatment should be related to the expected lifetime of the tooth rather than to the immediate cost of a simple restoration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2407659

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Dent J        ISSN: 0020-6539            Impact factor:   2.512


  9 in total

1.  What type of filling? Best practice in dental restorations.

Authors:  B L Chadwick; P M Dummer; F D Dunstan; A S Gilmour; R J Jones; C J Phillips; J Rees; S Richmond; J Stevens; E T Treasure
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1999-09

2.  Flexural strength of composites: influences of polyethylene fiber reinforcement and type of composite.

Authors:  C L Pereira; F F Demarco; M S Cenci; P W R Osinaga; E M Piovesan
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2003-03-07       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in plaque on a leucite-reinforced dental ceramic and on a calcium aluminate cement.

Authors:  Katarina Konradsson; R Claesson; J W V van Dijken
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-04-28       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Practitioner, patient and carious lesion characteristics associated with type of restorative material: findings from The Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Sonia K Makhija; Valeria V Gordan; Gregg H Gilbert; Mark S Litaker; D Brad Rindal; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Vibeke Qvist
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.634

5.  Hydrophobic and antimicrobial dentin: A peptide-based 2-tier protective system for dental resin composite restorations.

Authors:  Dina G Moussa; Alex Fok; Conrado Aparicio
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2019-02-10       Impact factor: 8.947

6.  Repair or replacement of restorations: A prospective cohort study by dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Valeria V Gordan; Joseph L Riley; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Jeffrey L Fellows; Deborah A Dilbone; Solomon G Brotman; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.634

7.  Is it the end of the road for dental amalgam? A critical review.

Authors:  Arvind Shenoy
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2008-07

Review 8.  In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review.

Authors:  Michel Goldberg
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Dental amalgam: An update.

Authors:  Ramesh Bharti; Kulvinder Kaur Wadhwani; Aseem Prakash Tikku; Anil Chandra
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2010-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.