Replacement of posterior restorations

Ji-Young Kim; Kyoung-Kyu Choi; Sang-Jin Park

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.6.460

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 31(6); 2006 > Article

Original Article Replacement of posterior restorations: Ji-Young Kim, Kyoung-Kyu Choi, Sang-Jin Park; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2006;31(6):460-469.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.6.460
Published online: November 30, 2006

Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Sang-Jin Park. Professor of Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University, 1 Hoegi-Dong, Dongdaemun-Gu, Seoul, Korea. Tel: 82-2-958-9335, psangjin@khu.ac.kr

• Received: May 17, 2006 • Revised: September 6, 2006 • Accepted: November 7, 2006

19 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

This article complies a survey on the replacement of the posterior restorations and accesses possible factors that influence the replacement of posterior restorations.

The data was collected from patients that visited department of conservative dentistry from Dec 1st 2003, to Sep 3rd 2004. Teeth was restricted to posterior permanent teeth. 9 dentists recorded age, gender of patients, tooth location, cavity form and restorative material. They rated marginal adaptation, anatomic form, secondary caries of old restoration by modified Ryge criteria system. The statistical analysis was performed with Chi square test (p < 0.05) for replacement ratio according to patients, tooth factor and One-way ANOVA was performed for comparison of old restoration according to restorative material.

The results were as follows;

1. The female (62%) was statistically higher ratio than the male (38%).

2. The distribution of replacement case according to age, the rate of replacement was in descending order, 20's (38.3%), 40's (16.8%), 30's (15.9%), 10's (11.1%), 50's (9.2%), 60's (8.7%).

3. The rate of replacement was 88% for molar and 12% for premolar (p < 0.05).

4. The rate of replacement was 39% for maxillar and 61% for mandible (p < 0.05).

5. The material of restorations was amalgam (69%), gold inlay (17%), composite resin (13%).

6. In rating system by modified Ryge criteria system on margin adaptation, there was statistically significant difference between amalgam and gold inlay. But on anatomic form and caries, there was no statistically significant difference among the material of restorations.
Keywords: Replacement; Posterior restorations; Age; Gender; Tooth location; Class of cavity preparation; Material of old restoration

REFERENCES

1. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3(1):45-64.PubMed
2. Mjör IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997;55: 58-63.Article PubMed
3. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent. 1997;25: 459-473.Article PubMed
4. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. Int Dent J. 1998;48: 3-16.PubMed
5. Palotie U, Vehkalahti M. Reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in posterior teeth of young Finnish adults. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60(6):325-329.Article PubMed
6. Anderson MH. Current concepts of dental caries and its prevention. Oper Dent. 2001;6(1):11-18.
7. Mjor IA. Amalgam and composite resin restorations: longevity and reasons for replacement. 1989;Quintessence Publishing Co Inc; 61-80.
8. Allander L, Birkhed D, Bratthall D. Reasons for replacement of class II amalgam restorations in private practice. Swed Dent J. 1990;14: 179-184.PubMed
9. Forss H, Widstrom E. Factors influencing the selection of restorative materials in dental care in Finland. J Dent. 1996;24: 257-262.PubMed
10. Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NH. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int. 1999;30: 234-242.PubMed
11. Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 1999;57(5):257-262.Article PubMed
12. Deligeorgi V, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care. 2001;8(1):5-11.Article PubMed PDF
13. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjor IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent. 2001;29(5):317-324.PubMed
14. Letzel H, van't Hof MA, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. The influence of the amalgam alloy on the survival of amalgam restorations: a secondary analysis of multiple controlled clinical trials. J Dent Res. 1997;76: 1787-1798.Article PubMed PDF
15. Mjör IA. Long term cost of restorative therapy using different materials. Scand J Dent Res. 1992;100: 60-65.Article PubMed
16. Stoll R, Sieweke M, Pieper K, Stachniss V, Schulte A. Longevity of cast gold inlays and partial crowns-a retrospective study at a dental school clinic. Clin Oral Investig. 1999;3: 100-104.Article PubMed PDF
17. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J. 1980;30(4):347-358.PubMed
18. Ryge G. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. The Californian dental association quality evaluation system: a standard for self-assessment. Quality Evaluation of Dental restorations. 1989;Chicago: Quintessence Pub Co Inc; 273-286.
19. Ryge G, Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Mjor I. Standardization of clinical investigators for studies of restorative materials. Swed Dent J. 1981;5(5-6):235-239.PubMed
20. Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J. 2000;50(6):361-366.Article PubMed
21. Gruythuysen RJ, Kreulen CM, Tobi H, van Amerongen E, Akerboom HB. 15-year evaluation of Class II amalgam restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1996;24: 207-210.PubMed
22. Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60(1):25-28.Article PubMed
23. Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictions of amalgam restorations. J Dent. 1991;19: 272-277.Article PubMed
24. Plasmans PJ, Creugers NH, Mulder J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 1998;77: 453-460.Article PubMed PDF
25. Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002;27(2):117-123.PubMed
26. Hamilton JC, Moffa JP, Ellison JA, Jenkins WA. Marginal fracture not a predictor of longevity for two dental amalgam alloys: a ten-year study. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50: 200-202.Article PubMed
27. Osborne JW, Norman RD, Gale EN. A 14-year clinical assessment of 12 amalgam alloys. Quintessence Int. 1991;22: 857-864.PubMed
28. Christensen GJ. The coming demise of the cast gold restoration? J Am Dent Assoc. 1996;127: 1233-1236.Article PubMed
29. Wagner J, Hiller KA, Schmalz G. Long-term clinical performance and longevity of gold alloy vs ceramic partial crown. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7: 80-85.PubMed
30. Hayashi M, Wilson NH, Watts DC. Quality of marginal adaptation evaluation of posterior composites in clinical trials. J Dent Res. 2003;82(1):59-63.Article PubMed PDF

Figure 1

The distribution of replacement related to gender.

Figure 2

The distribution of replacement related to patient's age.

Figure 3

The distribution of replacement related to tooth designation.

Figure 4

The distribution of replacement related to tooth location.

Figure 5

The distribution of replacement related to cavity preparation.

(O = occlusal cavity, BO, LO = occlusal cavity including buccal or lingual surface, MO, DO, MOD = cavity including proximal surface, CA = cervical cavity)

Figure 6

The distribution of replacement related to material of old restorations.

Figure 7

The marginal adaptation of old restorations.

Figure 8

The anatomic form of old restorations.

Figure 9

The secondary caries of old restorations.

Figure 10

The rating results of old restorations.

Table 1

Modified Ryge criteria system - Marginal adaptation

Table 2

Modified Ryge criteria system - Anatomic form, Caries

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Replacement of posterior restorations

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2006;31(6):460-469. Published online November 30, 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.6.460

XML Download

Figure

Replacement of posterior restorations

Figure 1 The distribution of replacement related to gender.

Figure 2 The distribution of replacement related to patient's age.

Figure 3 The distribution of replacement related to tooth designation.

Figure 4 The distribution of replacement related to tooth location.

Figure 5 The distribution of replacement related to cavity preparation. (O = occlusal cavity, BO, LO = occlusal cavity including buccal or lingual surface, MO, DO, MOD = cavity including proximal surface, CA = cervical cavity)

Figure 6 The distribution of replacement related to material of old restorations.

Figure 7 The marginal adaptation of old restorations.

Figure 8 The anatomic form of old restorations.

Figure 9 The secondary caries of old restorations.

Figure 10 The rating results of old restorations.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Replacement of posterior restorations

Table 1

Modified Ryge criteria system - Marginal adaptation

Table 2

Modified Ryge criteria system - Anatomic form, Caries

Table 1 Modified Ryge criteria system - Marginal adaptation

Table 2 Modified Ryge criteria system - Anatomic form, Caries