Direct posterior composite resin restorations: A review. 2. Clinical technique

Despite the increased use of composite resin to restore posterior teeth, there is evidence that clinicians should be selective in their use of these restorations. This paper describes the clinical technique--preparatory procedures, preparation of the cavity, preparation for placement of composite resin, placement of composite resin and finishing of the restoration--for the relatively conservative use of composite resin in posterior teeth and reviews the literature to discuss briefly many of the controversial aspects of the technique.     

A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations

There is a trend towards manufacturers seeking to provide dentists with a single, all-purpose composite resin, usually of the small particle hybrid type. This three-year clinical study compared the clinical performance of three different types of composite resin used in posterior teeth and identified several modes of failure. Of the 330 restorations (three composite resins and one amalgam control) initially placed in 72 patients, 223 restorations in 48 patients were available for evaluation at three years. Modified clinical criteria for assessing the restorations were able to discriminate among the composite resins. A microfilled composite and a small particle hybrid exhibited increasing evidence of marginal fracture (crevice) with time. In addition, the small particle hybrid showed evidence of wear at the margins more frequently than the other materials. Of the restorations available for assessment, four restorations of each of these two types of composite resin required replacement during the study. Coarse particle hybrid restorations showed evidence of wear but little evidence of marginal fracture.     

3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations

This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after 3 years. Eighty-four restorations were placed in 16 patients. The tested materials were: (i) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (ii) ALERT + Bond-1; (iii) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT; (iv) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and (v) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass-ionomer cement. Each adhesive system and composite resin was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according USPHS modified criteria. Fourteen patients attended the 3-year recall and 75 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon sign-ranked test for pair-wise comparison was used for data analysis (alpha = 0.05). The analysis was performed only for the baseline and for the 3-year period. Solitaire showed some fractures at marginal ridges in 25% of the cases. Solitaire and ALERT showed some concerns related to colour match (43 and 77%, respectively) and surface texture (86 and 77%, respectively). TPH Spectrum showed a great percentage of colour mismatch after 3 years, around 50%. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after 3 years, similar to the hybrid resin tested, TPH Spectrum. Solitaire did not fulfil the ADA acceptance criteria for restorative materials and, therefore, is not recommended for use in posterior restorations.     

后牙病理性磨损树脂修复的临床效果探讨

目的:观察用直接树脂充填法和间接树脂充填法修复后牙病理性磨损的临床效果。方法:选择后牙牙合面有病理性磨损且具有充填空间的患者48例,患牙144颗,其中有牙本质过敏症状者38例98颗牙。患者按门诊顺序随机分为直接法修复组和间接法修复组2组各24例,在不备洞的情况下分别采用可乐丽菲露复合树脂直接或间接修复,比较治疗3个月及1年后树脂充填的临床效果、牙本质敏感情况和咀嚼效率改变情况。结果:治疗后3个月时复查,直接法和间接法两组患牙树脂充填体A级率无显著性差异(卡方检验,P>0.05);治疗1年后复查,间接法组患牙树脂充填体A级率优于直接法组,两组差异有统计学意义(卡方检验,P<0.05)。间接法组牙本质敏感治疗总有效率优于直接法组,两组差异有统计学意义(卡方检验,P<0.05)。治疗3个月及治疗1年后,间接法组的咀嚼效率高于直接法,两组差异有统计学意义(t检验,P<0.01)。结论:间接树脂法比直接树脂充填法修复后牙病理性磨损有较好的临床效果。     

Direct cuspal-coverage posterior resin composite restorations: A case report

The clinical success of direct composite restorations is the result of the correct use and performance of adhesive systems, resin composites and light curing systems. Total-etch adhesive systems and microhybrid resin composites have seen continuous improvement; various clinical techniques have been introduced to address polymerization shrinkage. Manufacturers have introduced sophisticated light-curing devices with the hope of improving performance. Direct resin bonded composites (RBCs) are becoming the first choice in many clinical situations. This article presents an experimental clinical technique that outlines the reconstruction of severely damaged posterior teeth missing multiple cusps; particular attention to incremental and curing techniques is adopted to complete each restoration.     

������ֱ֬���޸��ٴ���Ч����

提要：复合树脂直接修复技术在现阶段临床已广泛应用,有关其修复治疗后的临床疗效已有很多报道。本文介绍了有关复合树脂直接修复技术的临床疗效评估方法、标准及影响因素,为临床实际和疗效观察提供参考。     

Bulk‐filled posterior resin restorations based on stress‐decreasing resin technology: a randomized,controlled 6‐year evaluation

This randomized study evaluated a flowable resin composite bulk‐fill technique in posterior restorations and compared it intraindividually with a conventional 2‐mm resin composite layering technique over a 6‐yr follow‐up period. Thirty‐eight pairs of Class II restorations and 15 pairs of Class I restorations were placed in 38 adults. In all cavities a single‐step self‐etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In the first cavity of each pair, the flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments of up to 4 mm. The occlusal part was completed with a layer of nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono). In the second cavity of each pair, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2‐mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then annually for a time period of 6 yr. After 6 yr, 72 Class II restorations and 26 Class I restorations could be evaluated. Six failed Class II molar restorations, three in each group, were observed, resulting in a success rate of 93.9% for all restorations and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.0% for both groups. The AFR for Class II and Class I restorations in both groups was 1.4% and 0%, respectively. The main reason for failure was resin composite fracture.     

Eighteen‐month clinical evaluation of microhybrid,packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations

Summary The aim of this article was to report the results of an 18‐month longitudinal randomized clinical trial that evaluated the clinical performance of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composite restorations placed in Class I cavities of molar teeth. Three Class I resin composite restorations were placed in each of 35 patients. Each patient received one microhybrid (‘Point 4’; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA), one packable (‘Packable Premise’; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and one nanofilled (‘Nanofilled Premise’; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) resin composite restoration. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (2 weeks after placement), and after 6, 12 and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria. No patients were lost from the study. At the final appointment (after 18 months), 95·4%, 93·7% and 96·2% respectively of the microhybrid (‘Point 4’), packable (‘Packable Premise’ and nanofilled (‘Nanofilled Premise’) resin composite restorations received Alfa ratings. Regardless of the type of restorative material, no significant changes were observed in the modified Ryge criteria at the baseline and 18‐month recalls (P ≤0·05). Three restorations (one from each group) exhibited post‐operative sensitivity at the baseline and 6‐month appointment. After 18 months, one packable resin composite restoration failed because of secondary caries, while secondary caries was not detected on any of the other restorations. The clinical performance of microhybrid (‘Point 4’), packable (‘Packable Premise’) and nanofilled (‘Nanofilled Premise’) resin composite restorations was acceptable after 18 months. Further studies with longer follow‐up periods are recommended to investigate the long‐term survival of these restorations.     

����������֬

后牙复合树脂(posterior composite resin)是指用于涉及到牙齿牙合面修复的材料,要求具有较高的抗压强度、弯曲强度、断裂韧性和耐磨损性。随着复合树脂的发展,后牙复合树脂的性能及临床应用效果不断得到提高。本文概述了目前市售后牙复合树脂的临床效果,以及在减小聚合收缩和提高耐磨损性方面的研究进展。     

Direct posterior resin composite restorations: considerations on finishing/polishing. Clinical procedures.

In spite of advances in materials and techniques for direct posterior composite restorations, some problems remain, such as occlusal wear rate, marginal breakdown, and marked operator technique sensitivity. To enhance longevity of these restorations, finishing and polishing procedures are commonly indicated. Although these procedures offer advantages, they also have some drawbacks, such as higher marginal breakdown and increased susceptibility to wear following finishing procedures. Faced with the disadvantages brought by finishing and polishing procedures, it seems reasonable to try and find a technique to omit them. This paper presents clinical cases exhibiting a restorative technique that prevents, or at least reduces, the need for instrumentation of the restoration. In cases when finishing procedures are necessary, the restorations should be sealed with a specific resinous agent to impart new strength to the instrumented surface and improve marginal integrity. In addition, the suggested technique promotes a better occlusal anatomy than that attained with the traditional technique.     

Direct posterior resin composite restorations: new techniques and clinical possibilities. Case reports.

Direct adhesive resin composite restorations in posterior teeth are now a reality thanks to improvements in these restorative materials and adhesive techniques. However, correct selection and application of materials are vastly important to clinical success. Two restorative techniques are described in detail, in one, a low-viscosity resin composite is placed incrementally, and in the other a condensable resin composite is placed in bulk. The former allows for greater security, because it is more traditional and has already proved to have clinical longevity; the latter has the advantage of being a quicker and simpler procedure. However, both techniques provide restorations that faithfully copy the dental tissues and have all the advantages of adhesive procedures.     

Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations

The aims of this prospective randomised clinical study were to clinically evaluate a radiopaque, highly filled, hybrid, light-activated resin-based composite for posterior teeth (Occlusin, ICI Dental, Macclesfield, UK and GC Dental, Tokyo, Japan) and compare the performance of restorations placed using rubber dam or cotton roll isolation. One clinician placed 100 (42 Class I and 58 Class II) restorations of the material under investigation. The isolation mode for each restoration was determined randomly: 52 preparations were protected from contamination with cotton rolls and aspiration, and 48 preparations were isolated under rubber dam. At baseline and periodically thereafter (0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 years), each composite was evaluated by two practitioners using a modified (USPHS) rating system. After 10 years, 37 restorations were reviewed. The results showed satisfactory clinical performance with and without rubber dam after 10 years. A concern was the number of failures at 10 years due to unsatisfactory proximal contact. The evaluations for the surviving restorations were acceptable but with a large reduction in the percentage with ideal occlusal and proximal anatomy. The 10-year comparison of isolation modes showed no statistically significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis test) for each of the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, survival analysis showed no significant difference between the groups (Mantel-Haenszel method). It was concluded that the 10-year clinical behaviour of the restorations of a posterior composite placed under well-controlled, effective isolation with cotton rolls and aspiration, was not significantly different from the behaviour of restorations placed using rubber dam isolation. Received: 7 February 2000 / Accepted: 8 March 2000     

Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin‐modified,glass‐ionomer cement lining: a 1‐year randomized,clinical trial

Aim: To investigate the effect of resin‐modified, glass‐ionomer cement lining on the quality of posterior resin composite restorations, bonded with a two‐step, total‐etch or self‐etching adhesive, at 1 year. Methods: Patients with 1–4 moderate‐to‐deep, primary occlusal caries in molars were informed and recruited. A total of 110 composite restorations were placed in 75 participants, with one of four restorative procedures: (a) bonded with a total‐etch adhesive (Single Bond 2); (b) lined with glass‐ionomer cement (Fuji Lining LC), and then bonded with total‐etch adhesive; (c) bonded with a self‐etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and (d) lined with glass‐ionomer cement, and then bonded with self‐etching adhesive. Results: At 1 year, 57 patients (86 restorations) attended the recall. Each of the restorations was evaluated and scored from 1 (clinically excellent) to 5 (clinically poor) using the following criteria: (a) patient satisfaction; (b) fracture and retention; (c) marginal adaptation; (d) recurrent caries; and (e) post‐operative sensitivity. At 1 year, the qualities of the restorations were not significantly affected by the placement of glass‐ionomer cement lining, regardless of the adhesive used (P > 0.05). Most of the restorations were scored 1 for all criteria. Conclusions: The benefit of placing a glass‐ionomer cement liner in resin composite restoration is questionable.     

Teaching the placement of posterior resin-based composite restorations in U.S. dental schools

BACKGROUND: In light of the increased use of and demand for posterior resin-based composite restorations in dental practice, the authors investigated U.S. dental schools' current teaching with regard to placement of posterior composite restorations. METHODS: In early 2005, the authors invited 52 schools to participate in an e-mailed survey. RESULTS: The authors received 47 completed responses, for a 90 percent response rate. Although all schools provided didactic and clinical teaching in the placement of occlusal resin-based composites in posterior teeth, the survey results showed variation in teaching the use of two- and three-surface occlusoproximal composites. CONCLUSIONS: The survey findings demonstrate a marked change in instruction in placement of posterior resin-based composite restorations in U.S. dental schools during the last five to 10 years. However, the authors found much variation in the nature and extent of the instruction and techniques taught. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dental schools need to ensure that their graduating students are well-prepared for independent clinical practice.