14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Failure rate of single-unit restorations on posterior vital teeth: A systematic review

      , , , , ,
      The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.

          Failure of dental restorations is a major concern in dental practice. Replacement of failed restorations constitutes the majority of operative work. Clinicians should be aware of the longevity of, and likely reasons for the failure of, direct posterior restorations. In a long-term, randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the longevity of amalgam and composite. SUBJECTS, METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors randomly assigned one-half of the 472 subjects, whose age ranged from 8 through 12 years, to receive amalgam restorations in posterior teeth and the other one-half to receive resin-based composite restorations. Study dentists saw subjects annually to conduct follow-up oral examinations and take bitewing radiographs. Restorations needing replacement were failures. The dentists recorded differential reasons for restoration failure. Subjects received a total of 1,748 restorations at baseline, which the authors followed for up to seven years. Overall, 10.1 percent of the baseline restorations failed. The survival rate of the amalgam restorations was 94.4 percent; that of composite restorations was 85.5 percent. Annual failure rates ranged from 0.16 to 2.83 percent for amalgam restorations and from 0.94 to 9.43 percent for composite restorations. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure in both materials. Risk of secondary caries was 3.5 times greater in the composite group. Amalgam restorations performed better than did composite restorations. The difference in performance was accentuated in large restorations and in those with more than three surfaces involved. Use of amalgam appears to be preferable to use of composites in multisurface restorations of large posterior teeth if longevity is the primary criterion in material selection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review.

            After the development of a variety of ceramic restorative systems over the past 20 years, the fabrication of fixed dental prostheses has undergone considerable change. Esthetics and resistance to fracture are two of the main determinants of the success of a restoration; the third is marginal adaptation. Therefore, a systematic review of the literature dedicated to the marginal accuracy of ceramic systems is indicated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.

              Information about the long-term clinical survival of large amalgam and composite restorations is still lacking. This retrospective study compares the longevity of three- and four-/five-surface amalgam and composite restorations relative to patients' caries risk. Patient records from a general practice were used for data collection. We evaluated 1949 large class II restorations (1202 amalgam/747 composite). Dates of placement, replacement, and failure were recorded, and caries risk of patients was assessed. Survival was calculated from Kaplan-Meier statistics. After 12 years, 293 amalgam and 114 composite restorations had failed. Large composite restorations showed a higher survival in the combined population and in the low-risk group. For three-surface restorations in high-risk patients, amalgam showed better survival.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
                The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
                Elsevier BV
                00223913
                March 2017
                March 2017
                : 117
                : 3
                : 345-353.e8
                Article
                10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.003
                27765400
                04106665-82fd-4f12-bd4a-c89db7177782
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article