1 year follow-up study of direct and indirect composite restorations

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2002;27(3):284-289

Publication date (electronic) : 2002 May 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.3.284

Associate Professor, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

Background

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the direct and indirect composite restorations which had been placed for 1 year.

Methods

The composite restorations which had been placed between 1999. Mar and 1999, Dec was evaluated after 1 year. For direct restorations, Spectrum (Dentsply, USA) and Z100 (3M, USA) were used in the anterior teeth and Surefil (Dentsply, USA) were used. For class V restorations of anterior and posterior teeth, Spectrum was used. For indirect restorations, Targis/Vectris system (Vivadent/Ivoclar, Liechtenstein) was used. 2 examiners evaluated marginal quality, proximal contact, discoloration, presence of 2^nd caries, loss of filling and hypersensitivity of restorations. The restorations was clinically evaluated by modified methods based on USPHS.

Results

60 teeth were evaluated. 59 were clinically acceptable and 1 restoration which was placed in class v cavity in the posterior tooth was fallen out. In most cases, the restorations were clinically acceptable. For restorations which had been directly placed in the class II cavities, loose proximal contact was indicated as the main complaints.

Conclusions

Most of Anterior and posterior restorations which bad been directly or indirectly placed for 1 year were clinically acceptable. For posterior teeth, loose proximal contact was indicated as the main problem in the directly placed Class II restorations. Long term clinical study is needed.

Keywords: Composite resin; Direct restoration; Indirect restoration; Complication

References

1. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, Holston AM, Gingell JC. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int 1991. 22143–151.

2. Wilson NHF, Margaret AW, Wastell DG, Smith GA. A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative materials: five-year results. Quintessence Int 1988. 19675–681.

3. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Willems G, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Clinical and semiquantitative amrgin analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years. J Dent 1995. 23329–338.

4. Bessing C, Lundqvist P. A 1 year clinical examination of indirect composite resin inlay: a preliminary report. Quintessence Int 1991. 22153–157.

5. Browning WD, Dennison JB. A survey of failure modes in composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 1996. 21160–166.

6. Powell LV, Johnson GH, Gordon GE. Factors associated with clinical success of cervical abrasion/erosion restoration. Oper Dent 1995. 207–13.

7. Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Two-year clinical evaluation of two dentine-adhesive systems in cervical lesion. J Dent 1993. 21195–202.

8. Fuks AB, chosack A, Eidelman E. A Two-year evaluation in vivo and in vitro of class 2 composites. Oper Dent 1990. 15219–223.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.