Document Detail

The longevity of direct and indirect posterior restorations is uncertain and may be affected by a number of dentist-, patient-, and material-related factors.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20230962     Owner:  NLM     Status:  PubMed-not-MEDLINE    
SELECTION CRITERIA: Information pertaining to how the studies were located and selected was very limited. The authors did state that they reviewed the "dental literature predominately from 1990" that reported on clinical studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up and at least an N of 10 at-risk restorations at the last recall.
KEY STUDY FACTOR: Although a number of important study factors were identified that could potentially impact posterior restoration survival, such as secondary caries, incorrect manipulation of the materials, or material fracture, no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria were identified that were applied across all studies reviewed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: This review concentrated on the longevity of restorations on posterior teeth subject to occlusal forces. The main outcome measure was survival of the restoration. Where applicable, measures of cause (secondary caries, marginal adaptation, fracture, wear, and so forth) were reported.
MAIN RESULTS: There were 42 amalgam studies, 51 direct composite, 5 direct composite with inserts, 7 compomer, 6 glass ionomer, 7 GI tunnel restorations, 6 GI ART restorations, 20 composite inlays and onlays, 36 laboratory-fabricated ceramic inlays and onlays, 20 CAD-CAM ceramic inlays and onlays, and 19 cast gold inlays and onlays. The values reported for annual failure rate were calculated for mean, median, and standard deviation for each material. Mean (SD) annual failure rates for posterior stress-bearing cavities were as follows: 3.0% (1.9%) for amalgam restorations, 2.2% (2.0%) for direct composites, 3.6% (4.2%) for direct composites with inserts, 1.1% (1.2%) for compomer restorations, 7.2% (5.6%) for regular glass ionomer restorations, 7.1% (2.8%) for tunnel glass ionomers, 6.0% (4.6%) for ART glass ionomers, 2.9% (2.6%) for composite inlays, 1.9% (1.8%) for ceramic restorations, 1.7% (1.6%) for CAD/CAM ceramic restorations, and 1.4%(1.4%) for cast gold inlays and onlays.
CONCLUSIONS: "Longevity of dental restorations is dependent upon many different factors, including materials-, patient- and dentist-related factors." "Principal reasons for failure were secondary caries, fracture, marginal deficiencies, wear, and postoperative sensitivity. We need to learn to distinguish between reasons that cause early failures and those that are responsible for restoration loss after several years of service."
Gary R Goldstein
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  The journal of evidence-based dental practice     Volume:  10     ISSN:  1532-3390     ISO Abbreviation:  J Evid Based Dent Pract     Publication Date:  2010 Mar 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-03-16     Completed Date:  2010-04-15     Revised Date:  2014-07-30    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101083101     Medline TA:  J Evid Based Dent Pract     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  30-1     Citation Subset:  -    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Randomized controlled trial demonstrates that exposure to mercury from dental amalgam does not adver...
Next Document:  Carbon fiber posts may have fewer failures than metal posts.