Background 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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. Clinical Implications 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.

/pdf/survival-and-reasons-for-failure-of-amalgam-versus-composite-28v7ys5bxf.pdf

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

Increasing numbers of resin-based dental restorations have been placed over the past decade. During this same period, the public interest in the local and especially systemic adverse effects caused by dental materials has increased significantly. It has been found that each resin-based material releases several components into the oral environment. In particular, the comonomer, triethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (TEGDMA), and the 'hydrophilic' monomer, 2-hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate (HEMA), are leached out from various composite resins and 'adhesive' materials (e.g., resin-modified glass-ionomer cements [GICs] and dentin adhesives) in considerable amounts during the first 24 hours after polymerization. Numerous unbound resin components may leach into saliva during the initial phase after polymerization, and later, due to degradation or erosion of the resinous restoration. Those substances may be systemically distributed and could potentially cause adverse systemic effects in patients. In addition, absorption of organic substances from unpolymerized material, through unprotected skin, due to manual contact may pose a special risk for dental personnel. This is borne out by the increasing numbers of dental nurses, technicians, and dentists who present with allergic reactions to one or more resin components, like HEMA, glutaraldehyde, ethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (EGDMA), and dibenzoyl peroxide (DPO). However, it must be emphasized that, except for conventional composite resins, data reported on the release of substances from resin-based materials are scarce. There is very little reliable information with respect to the biological interactions between resin components and various tissues. Those interactions may be either protective, like absorption to dentin, or detrimental, e.g., inflammatory reactions of soft tissues. Microbial effects have also been observed which may contribute indirectly to caries and irritation of the pulp. Therefore, it is critical, both for our patients and for the profession, that the biological effects of resin-based filling materials be clarified in the near future.

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Determination of leachable components from four commercial dental composites by gas and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry

Controversy persists regarding the treatment planning criteria for esthetic restorations. This article reviews the literature regarding the biocompatibility, marginal adaptation, color matching, patient selection, technique sensitivity, and mode and rate of failure of tooth-colored restorations. A Medline search was completed for the period from 1986 to 2006, along with a manual search, to identify pertinent English peer-reviewed articles and textbooks. The key words used were amalgam, posterior composite resin, ceramic inlays/onlays, CEREC, porcelain laminate veneers, all-ceramic crowns, and all-ceramic fixed partial dentures.

An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: A review of the literature

http://chemotaxis.semmelweis.hu/CHTXhpg/xCELLigence/UrcanE-DentalMat-2010.pdf

U. Schoeler

Papers

A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class I and Class II composite restorations