Comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995–2005 and 2006–2016 periods

Abstract

Composites are increasing in popularity as restorative materials. This growing role indicates the necessity of studies on their clinical outcome. In this study, clinical studies published on the performance of posterior composite restorations were included except those of less than a 24-month assessment period. Results of non-vital, anterior or primary teeth and cervical single-surface restorations were also excluded. Records about composite type, number of final recall restorations, failure/survival rate, assessment period and failure reasons were analysed for each decade. Overall survival/failure rates for studies in 1995-2005 were 89.41%/10.59% and for 2006-2016 were 86.87%/13.13%, respectively. In 1995-2005, the reasons for failure were secondary caries (29.47%) and composite fracture (28.84%) with low tooth fracture (3.45%) compared with reasons of failure in 2006-2016, which were secondary caries (25.68%), composite fracture (39.07%), and tooth fracture (23.76%). An increase in incidence of composite fracture, tooth fracture and need for endodontic treatment as failure reasons was noted in the latter decade in addition to a decrease in secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, unsatisfactory marginal adaptation and wear. The overall rates of failure showed little difference, but the causes showed a notable change. This is believed to be a reflection of increased use of composites for larger restorations and possibly changes of material characteristics.

Degree of conversion and cross‐link density within a resin‐matrix composite

“…The quality of matrix polymerization can impact the overall performance and longevity of the RMC restoration . A recent literature review reported an increase in RMC fracture over the past decade, where RMC failure due to fracture between 1995 and 2005 was 28.84% compared with 39.07% between 2006 and 2016 . RMC fracture may be due to multiple factors including non‐uniform polymerization across the RMC surface .…”

Frequency of Post-Operative Sensitivity in Class II Composite Restorations in Iranian Patients

“…A previous study has shown that 61% of the studied dentists had problem after performing posterior composite resin restorations. Other research has shown that only 6% of the restorations showed a primary sensitivity during 14 days [2]. In this study, in order to solve the above problems, individuals with the same skills were used and similar techniques were applied.…”

“…Today, with increased awareness, a special attention has been directed towards beauty, and as such application of tooth-colored materials, as effective factors in the beauty of smile, has increased considerably [1,2]. Various materials have been introduced regarding this spectrum including composite resin, whose application as restorer of posterior teeth has become the forefront of attention [1].…”

“…These materials have two major characteristics: first they are tooth colored and second they can be bonded to the tooth surface [3]. Furthermore, new studies have suggested successful results of application of resin composites in posterior teeth, which is due to optimization of the quality of composite resin materials and adhesive systems [2].…”

Color stability evaluation of micro hybrid composite resins submitted to accelerated artificial aging

“…1 The composites have become the dentists' materials of choice for most restorations, due to their sophisticated aesthetic characteristics in the anterior region and due to their adequate biomechanical strength when used in posterior teeth. [2][3][4][5] Choosing an esthetic restorative material is largely due to its ability to imitate the color of the dental element. 6 Using it as a model for obtaining the optical characteristics of dentin and enamel is based on the concept of natural stratification, a simple and effective approach to manufacture highly aesthetic direct restorations.…”