505
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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.

          Abstract

          Advances in material sciences and technology have provided today's clinicians the strategies to transform the mechanistic approach of operative dentistry into a biologic philosophy. In the last three decades, composite resins have gone from being just an esthetically pleasing way of restoring Class III and Class IV cavities to become the universal material for both anterior and posterior situations as they closely mimic the natural esthetics while restoring the form of the human dentition. In order to enhance their success, clinicians have to rethink their protocol instead of applying the same restorative concepts and principles practiced with metallic restorations. Paralleling the evolution of posterior composite resin materials, cavity designs, restorative techniques and armamentarium have also developed rapidly to successfully employ composite resins in Class II situations. Most of the earlier problems with posterior composites such as poor wear resistance, polymerization shrinkage, postoperative sensitivity, predictable bonding to dentin, etc., have been overcome to a major extent. However, the clinically relevant aspect of achieving tight contacts in Class II situations has challenged clinicians the most. This paper reviews the evolution of techniques and recent developments in achieving predictable contacts with posterior composites. A Medline search was performed for articles on “direct posterior composite contacts.” The keywords used were “contacts and contours of posterior composites.” The reference list of each article was manually checked for additional articles of relevance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • 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

            A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.

            The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the longevity of class I and II amalgam and composite resin restorations placed in a general practice. Patient records of a general practice were used for collecting the data for this study. From the files longevity and reasons for failure of 2867 class I and II amalgam and composite resin restorations placed in 621 patients by two operators between 1990 and 1997 were recorded in 2002. 912 amalgam restorations (502 by operator 1 and 410 by operator 2) and 1955 posterior composite resin restorations (1470 by operator 1 and 485 by operator 2) were placed. One hundred and eighty-two amalgam and 259 posterior composite resin restorations failed during the observation period. The main reasons for failure of the restorations were caries (34%), endodontic treatment (12%) and fracture of the tooth (13%). Life tables calculated from the data reveal a survival for composite resin of 91.7% at 5 years and 82.2% at 10 years. For amalgam the survival is 89.6% at 5 years and 79.2% at 10 years. Cox-regression analysis resulted in a significant effect of the amount of restored surfaces on the survival of the restorations. No significant effect of operator, material as well as combination of material and operator was found. In the investigated general practice, two dentists obtained comparable longevity for amalgam and composite resin restorations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites.

              The objective of this study was to investigate clinical changes in proximal contact strength inserting Class II composite resin restorations according to one of three randomly assigned protocols. Seventy-one Class II restorations (MO/DO) were placed by two calibrated operators. Restorations were randomly assigned to one of three groups: one using a circumferential and two a sectional matrix system with separation rings. Proximal contacts were measured by one independent observer with a Tooth Pressure Meter immediately before treatment, and directly after finishing the restoration. Compared to the situation before treatment groups with a sectional matrix system resulted in a statistical significant stronger mean proximal contact strengths (p<0.05), whereas the use of a circumferential matrix system with hand-instrument resulted in a lower proximal contact strength (p<0.05). Class II posterior composite resin restorations placed with a combination of sectional matrices and separation rings resulted in a stronger proximal contact than when a circumferential matrix system was used.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Conserv Dent
                JCD
                Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                0972-0707
                0974-5203
                Oct-Dec 2011
                : 14
                : 4
                : 330-336
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
                [1 ]Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, AECS Maaruti Dental College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. Ramya Raghu, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore 29, India. E-mail: mds.raghu@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                JCD-14-330
                10.4103/0972-0707.87192
                3227275
                22144797
                4a4421b5-0a8d-4c71-ac74-df93ce6bbe4f
                Copyright: © Journal of Conservative Dentistry

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 April 2011
                : 22 May 2011
                : 12 July 2011
                Categories
                Invited Review

                Dentistry
                ceramic inserts,direct posterior composite contacts,contact rings,precontoured sectional matrices,light tips,contact forming instruments

                Comments

                Comment on this article