Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 2/2003

01-06-2003

Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review

Authors: A. Brunthaler, F. König, T. Lucas, W. Sperr, A. Schedle

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 2/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

This review is a survey of prospective studies on the clinical performance of posterior resin composites published between 1996 and 2002. Material, patient- and operator-specific data, observation periods, isolation methods of the operative field, and failure rates are detailed in tables. The data were evaluated statistically in order to assess the role of materials (filler size, bonding system, base materials [e.g. glass ionomer cements], and lining materials), study design, and personnel on failure rates. The primary reasons for composite failure were secondary caries, restoration fracture, and marginal defects. The influence of different commercial material brands on failure rates was not evaluated due to the great variety of test substances and the lack of material-specific documentation. Effects of the isolation method of the operative field (rubber dam or cotton rolls) and the professional status of operators (university or general dentist) on composite failure rates were not found to be significant. Observation periods varied from 1 to 17 years, and failure rates ranged between 0% and 45%. A linear correlation between failure rate and observation period was found (P<0.0001). Thirteen of 24 studies were terminated after 3 years, while seven studies continued for more than 10 years, indicating that favourable results for composite materials are frequently based on short-term results, despite higher dropout rates in longer studies. To determine accurately the risk for patients, long-term, randomised, controlled clinical trials of treatment outcomes with composites used in posterior teeth are clearly needed.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA (1996) 2 year clinical evaluation of Class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 9:150PubMed Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA (1996) 2 year clinical evaluation of Class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 9:150PubMed
2.
go back to reference Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Wilder AD, Heymann HO, Tangen CM (1991) Clinical longevity of ten posterior composite materials based on wear. J Dent Res 70:340 (abstract) Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Wilder AD, Heymann HO, Tangen CM (1991) Clinical longevity of ten posterior composite materials based on wear. J Dent Res 70:340 (abstract)
3.
go back to reference Braun AR, Frankenberger R, Krämer N (2001) Clinical performance and margin analysis of Ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year. Clin Oral Invest 5:139–147CrossRef Braun AR, Frankenberger R, Krämer N (2001) Clinical performance and margin analysis of Ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year. Clin Oral Invest 5:139–147CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Busato AL, Loguercio AD, Reis A, de Oliveira Carrilho MR (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results. Am J Dent 14:304–308PubMed Busato AL, Loguercio AD, Reis A, de Oliveira Carrilho MR (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results. Am J Dent 14:304–308PubMed
5.
go back to reference Collins CJ, Bryant RW, Hodge KLV (1998) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. J Dent 26:311–317CrossRefPubMed Collins CJ, Bryant RW, Hodge KLV (1998) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. J Dent 26:311–317CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Cvar J, Ryge G (1971) Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. USPHS publ. no. 790–240. U.S. Government Printing Office, San Francisco Cvar J, Ryge G (1971) Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. USPHS publ. no. 790–240. U.S. Government Printing Office, San Francisco
7.
go back to reference Ernst C-P, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Invest 5:148–155 Ernst C-P, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Invest 5:148–155
8.
go back to reference Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3:185–194PubMed Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3:185–194PubMed
9.
go back to reference Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64PubMed Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64PubMed
10.
go back to reference Hondrum SA (2000) The longevity of resin-based composite restorations in posterior teeth. Gen Dent 48:398–404PubMed Hondrum SA (2000) The longevity of resin-based composite restorations in posterior teeth. Gen Dent 48:398–404PubMed
11.
go back to reference Hugo B, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Hausmann P, Kleiber B (2001) In-vivo-Untersuchung von kleinen Klasse-II-Kompositfüllungen. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 111:11–18PubMed Hugo B, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Hausmann P, Kleiber B (2001) In-vivo-Untersuchung von kleinen Klasse-II-Kompositfüllungen. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 111:11–18PubMed
12.
go back to reference Köhler B, Rasmusson C-G, Ödman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116PubMed Köhler B, Rasmusson C-G, Ödman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116PubMed
13.
go back to reference Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL (2001) One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 26:427–434PubMed Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL (2001) One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 26:427–434PubMed
14.
go back to reference Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2002) Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composites resins. Clin Oral Invest 6:79–83CrossRef Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2002) Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composites resins. Clin Oral Invest 6:79–83CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lundin SA, Koch G (1999) Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J 23:165–171PubMed Lundin SA, Koch G (1999) Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J 23:165–171PubMed
16.
go back to reference Mair LH (1998) Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 29:483–490PubMed Mair LH (1998) Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 29:483–490PubMed
17.
go back to reference 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 84:289–296CrossRefPubMed 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 84:289–296CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Mjör IA, Jokstad A (1993) Five-year study of class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement and resin-based composite materials. J Dent 21:338–343PubMed Mjör IA, Jokstad A (1993) Five-year study of class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement and resin-based composite materials. J Dent 21:338–343PubMed
19.
go back to reference Nordbø H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR (1998) Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int 29:5–11PubMed Nordbø H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR (1998) Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int 29:5–11PubMed
20.
go back to reference Oberländer H, Hiller K-A, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 5:102–107CrossRef Oberländer H, Hiller K-A, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 5:102–107CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Perry RD, Kugel G (2000) Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 21:1067–1072, 1074, 1076, 1080PubMed Perry RD, Kugel G (2000) Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 21:1067–1072, 1074, 1076, 1080PubMed
22.
go back to reference Perry RD, Kugel G, Habib CM, McGarry P, Settembrini L (1997) A two-year clinical evaluation of TPH for restoration of Class II carious lesions in permanent teeth. Gen Dent 45:344–349PubMed Perry RD, Kugel G, Habib CM, McGarry P, Settembrini L (1997) A two-year clinical evaluation of TPH for restoration of Class II carious lesions in permanent teeth. Gen Dent 45:344–349PubMed
23.
go back to reference Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson NHF (1999) Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report. J Dent 27:13–19CrossRefPubMed Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson NHF (1999) Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report. J Dent 27:13–19CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NHF (2000) Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest 4:148–152CrossRef Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NHF (2000) Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest 4:148–152CrossRef
25.
26.
go back to reference Ryge G, Snyder M (1973) Evaluation of the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87:369–377PubMed Ryge G, Snyder M (1973) Evaluation of the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87:369–377PubMed
27.
go back to reference Ryge G, Stanford JW (1977) Recommended format for protocol for clinical research program. Clinical comparison of several anterior and posterior restorative material. Int Dent J 27:46–50PubMed Ryge G, Stanford JW (1977) Recommended format for protocol for clinical research program. Clinical comparison of several anterior and posterior restorative material. Int Dent J 27:46–50PubMed
28.
go back to reference Scheibenbogen A, Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Kremers L, Benz C, Hickel R (1997) One year clinical evaluation of composite fillings and inlays in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Invest 1:65–70CrossRef Scheibenbogen A, Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Kremers L, Benz C, Hickel R (1997) One year clinical evaluation of composite fillings and inlays in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Invest 1:65–70CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (1999) Two year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 82:391–397PubMed Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (1999) Two year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 82:391–397PubMed
30.
go back to reference Schoch M, Kramer N, Frankenberger R, Petschelt A (1999) Direct posterior composite restorations with a new adhesive system: one-year results. J Adhesive Dent 2:167–173 Schoch M, Kramer N, Frankenberger R, Petschelt A (1999) Direct posterior composite restorations with a new adhesive system: one-year results. J Adhesive Dent 2:167–173
31.
go back to reference Türkün S, Aktener BO (2001) Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 132:196-203PubMed Türkün S, Aktener BO (2001) Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 132:196-203PubMed
32.
go back to reference van Dijken JWV (2000) Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11-year follow-up. J Dent 28:299–306PubMed van Dijken JWV (2000) Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11-year follow-up. J Dent 28:299–306PubMed
33.
go back to reference Wassel RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF (2000) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28:375–382PubMed Wassel RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF (2000) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28:375–382PubMed
34.
go back to reference Wilder AD Jr, May KN Jr, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF (1999) Seventeen year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 11:135–142PubMed Wilder AD Jr, May KN Jr, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF (1999) Seventeen year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 11:135–142PubMed
35.
go back to reference Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NHF (2002) A practise-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 27:423–429PubMed Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NHF (2002) A practise-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 27:423–429PubMed
Metadata
Title
Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review
Authors
A. Brunthaler
F. König
T. Lucas
W. Sperr
A. Schedle
Publication date
01-06-2003
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 2/2003
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2003

Clinical Oral Investigations 2/2003 Go to the issue