Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 2/2014

01-03-2014 | Original Article

Five-year retrospective clinical study of indirect composite restorations luted with a light-cured composite in posterior teeth

Authors: Camillo D’Arcangelo, Maciej Zarow, Francesco De Angelis, Mirco Vadini, Michele Paolantonio, Mario Giannoni, Maurizio D’Amario

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of indirect composite onlays–overlays bonded with a light-cured composite on vital molars.

Materials and methods

Forty-one patients were restored with 79 indirect composite restorations. The restorations were studied for an observation time of 5 years. Marginal adaptation, marginal discolouration, secondary caries, colour match and anatomic form were clinically examined following modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Each restoration was also examined for fractures and debonding. Endodontic complications were registered. Survival rate, based just on failures that required a replacement, and success rate that included also failures that required a repair intervention were statistically determined using a restoration and a patient-related analysis.

Results

After 5 years, using each restoration as a statistical unit, the survival rate was 91.1 % and the success rate 84.8 %, with a high Kaplan–Meier estimated success probability of 0.852. Using the patient as the statistical unit, the survival rate was 90.2 % and the success rate 85.4 %, corresponding to a Kaplan–Meier estimated success probability of 0.857. On the basis of the criteria used, most of the restorations rated Alpha. Regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discolouration, 5 and 10.1 % of the restorations, respectively, revealed Bravo ratings

Conclusions

Indirect composite restorations offer a predictable and successful treatment modality giving an optimal preservation of sound tooth tissue.

Clinical relevance

The preparation, cementation and finishing procedures are considered key factors for the long-term success of the indirect composite restorations.
Literature
1.
Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P (2006) A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence Int 37:139–144PubMed
2.
Barone A, Derchi G, Rossi A, Marconcini S, Covani U (2008) Longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded composite inlays: a 3-year study. Quintessence Int 39:65–71PubMed
3.
Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40PubMedCrossRef
4.
Geurtsen W (2000) Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 11:333–355PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hadis M, Leprince JG, Shortall AC, Devaux J, Leloup G, Palin WM (2011) High irradiance curing and anomalies of exposure reciprocity law in resin-based materials. J Dent 39:549–557PubMedCrossRef
6.
Carvalho RM, Pereira JC, Yoshiyama M, Pashley DH (1996) A review of polymerization contraction: the influence of stress development versus stress relief. Oper Dent 21:17–24PubMed
7.
Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ (1997) Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 25:435–440PubMedCrossRef
8.
Thonemann B, Federlin M, Schmalz G, Grundler W (1999) Total bonding vs selective bonding: marginal adaptation of class 2 composite restorations. Oper Dent 24:261–271PubMed
9.
Loguercio AD, Alessandra R, Mazzocco KC, Dias AL, Busato ALS, Singer JDM, Rosa P (2002) Microleakage in class II composite resin restorations: total bonding and open sandwich technique. J Adhes Dent 4:137–144PubMed
10.
D'Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, Carluccio F, Vitalone LM, D'Amario M (2012) Influence of curing time, overlay material and thickness on three light-curing composites used for luting indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 14:377–384PubMed
11.
Bott B, Hannig M (2003) Effect of different luting materials on the marginal adaptation of class I ceramic inlay restorations in vitro. Dent Mater 19:264–269PubMedCrossRef
12.
D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L (2007) Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 9:319–326PubMed
13.
Acquaviva PA, Cerutti F, Adami G, Gagliani M, Ferrari M, Gherlone E, Cerutti A (2009) Degree of conversion of three composite materials employed in the adhesive cementation of indirect restorations: a micro-Raman analysis. J Dent 37:610–615PubMedCrossRef
14.
D'Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, D'Amario M (2012) Clinical evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light-cured composite: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 16:1071–1079PubMedCrossRef
15.
D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Prosperi GD, Di Bussolo G, De Angelis F, D'Amario M, Caputi S (2009) The influence of adhesive thickness on the microtensile bond strength of three adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 11:109–115PubMed
16.
Magne P (2005) Immediate dentin sealing: a fundamental procedure for indirect bonded restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 17:144–154, discussion 155PubMedCrossRef
17.
D'Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, D'Amario M, Zazzeroni S, Ciampoli C, Caputi S (2009) The influence of luting systems on the microtensile bond strength of dentin to indirect resin-based composite and ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 34:328–336PubMedCrossRef
18.
Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9:215–232PubMedCrossRef
19.
Huth KC, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R, Manhart J (2011) Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years. J Dent 39:478–488PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bayne SC, Schmalz G (2005) Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:209–214PubMedCrossRef
21.
Guess PC, Stappert CF (2008) Midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical investigation of extended ceramic veneers. Dent Mater 24:804–813PubMedCrossRef
22.
Roulet JF (1997) Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam—results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Investig 1:40–46PubMedCrossRef
23.
Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R (2010) Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing preparations placed by dental students: results after 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. Quintessence Int 41:399–410PubMed
24.
Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R (2000) Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 84:289–296PubMedCrossRef
25.
Dukic W, Dukic OL, Milardovic S, Delija B (2010) Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement. Oper Dent 35:156–164PubMedCrossRef
26.
Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE (2000) Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 50:361–366PubMedCrossRef
27.
Mjör IA, Toffenetti F (2000) Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 31:165–179PubMed
28.
Donly KJ, Jensen ME, Triolo P, Chan D (1999) A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years. Quintessence Int 30:163–168PubMed
29.
Pallesen U, Qvist V (2003) Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 7:71–79PubMedCrossRef
30.
Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Quagliatto PS, Soares CJ (2008) The influence of the cavity preparation design on marginal accuracy of laboratory-processed resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 12:53–59PubMedCrossRef
31.
Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R (2007) Brittleness index of machinable dental materials and its relation to the marginal chipping factor. J Dent 35:897–902PubMedCrossRef
32.
Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodríguez de Mondelo JM (2001) The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 86:481–488PubMedCrossRef
33.
Hummel SK, Marker V, Pace L, Goldfogle M (1997) Surface treatment of indirect resin composite surfaces before cementation. J Prosthet Dent 77:568–572PubMedCrossRef
34.
Crumpler DC, Bayne SC, Sockwell S, Brunson D, Roberson TM (1989) Bonding to resurfaced posterior composites. Dent Mater 5:417–424PubMedCrossRef
35.
Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R (1997) Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 77:122–126PubMedCrossRef
36.
Cho S, Rajitrangson P, Matis B, Platt J (2012) Effect of Er, Cr:YSGG laser, air abrasion, and silane application on repaired shear bond strength of composites. Oper Dent 38(3):E1–E9PubMedCrossRef
37.
Caneppele TM, de Souza AC, Batista GR, Borges AB, Torres CR (2012) Influence of Nd:YAG or Er:YAG laser surface treatment on microtensile bond strength of indirect resin composites to resin cement. Lasers surface treatment of indirect resin composites. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 20:135–140PubMed
Metadata
Title
Five-year retrospective clinical study of indirect composite restorations luted with a light-cured composite in posterior teeth
Authors
Camillo D’Arcangelo
Maciej Zarow
Francesco De Angelis
Mirco Vadini
Michele Paolantonio
Mario Giannoni
Maurizio D’Amario
Publication date
01-03-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1001-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Clinical Oral Investigations 2/2014 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

The 100 most cited articles in dentistry—some discussions

Original Article

Association of MTHFR gene C677T mutation with recurrent aphthous stomatitis and number of oral ulcers

Original Article

Clinical results after nonsurgical therapy in aggressive and chronic periodontitis

Original Article

Effectiveness and biological compatibility of different generations of dentin adhesives

Original Article

Bacterial colonization of microbial biofilms in oral squamous cell carcinoma

Original Article

Mandibular trabecular bone structure in adults with Crohn’s disease