An analysis of the timing and materials associated with pulp disease following restorative dental treatment

Abstract

Teeth that developed pulp disease requiring further intervention that were restored with crowns and five-surface GIC developed the disease sooner than teeth that were restored with amalgam or composite. In teeth with five-surface restorations that developed pulp disease requiring further intervention, premolar and anterior teeth developed the pulp disease sooner than molars.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

“…The first looked at the timing of pulpal disease after restoration and its association with the material used for restoration. 256 The data were drawn from the Oral Health Center of Western Australia from 2009 through 2013 and included restoration type, restored surfaces, tooth type, and dates of restoration and subsequent endodontic treatment or extraction. Three hundred thirty teeth met criteria requiring endodontic or extraction treatment, of which 26% were composite resin restorations, 24% amalgams, 36% glass ionomers, and 14% crowns.…”

Coronal restoration in root-filled and non root-filled teeth : studies on periapical status, tooth survival, subsequent treatments and treatment decisions

“…These results are in agreement with a previous study (30) and may be explained by pulpal damage, due to earlier caries and/or fractures, in combination with the invasiveness of the crown preparation procedure (26)(27)(28)(29). Moreover, one study reported that compared to teeth restored with composite or amalgam, those with extensive restorations (fivesurface and crowns) required further intervention sooner, due to pulpal pathology (136).…”