Posterior Composites Revisited

Placement of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Dental Practitioners in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia

Dental practitioner-related factors can affect the quality of composite restorations. This study aimed to investigate the clinical techniques used by dental practitioners (DPs) while placing direct posterior composite restorations. Methods: A questionnaire survey that sought information related to the placement of posterior composite restorations was delivered to 161 DPs working in the Al-Kharj area, Saudi Arabia. The collected data were statistically analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test considering the DP’s working sector and the answered questions. Results: A total of 123 DPs completed the survey (76.4% response rate). There was a statistically significant difference between DPs working in the private sector and those working in the governmental sector in 7 out of 17 questionnaire items namely: preparing a minimum depth of 2 mm, (p = 0.001); mechanical means of retention, (p = 0.003); operative field isolation, (p = 0.004); adhesive strategy, (p < 0.001); light-curing unit used, (p = 0.013); the use of radiometer, (p = 0.023), and dental matrix selection, (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The clinical techniques applied by DPs working in the private sector in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia when placing posterior composite restorations, including the specifications of cavity preparation, operative field isolation, and selection of the dental matrix system, may be substandard compared to those applied by DPs working in the governmental sector.

Current and future trends in the teaching of direct posterior resin composites in Malaysian dental schools: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the current and future teaching of posterior composite restorations in undergraduate curricula in Malaysian dental schools.

METHODS

A 24-item validated questionnaire including closed and open questions on the teaching of posterior composites was emailed to faculty members in all 13 Dental Schools in Malaysia. Responses were compiled on Excel and analysed.

RESULTS

All 13 dental schools responded to the survey yielding a 100 % response. All schools indicated the use of posterior composites for 2- and 3-surface cavities in premolars and molars. The didactic teaching time devoted to composites was greater than for amalgam (38 h vs 29 h). Clinically, most posterior restorations placed by students were composites (average 74.1 %, range 10 %-100 %); the remaining 25.9 % were amalgams (range, 0 %-50 %). Slot-type cavities were the preparation techniques most commonly taught (n = 11,84.6 %). The use of rubber dam for moisture control was mandatory in most schools (n = 11, 84.6 %). History of adverse reaction to composites was found to be the most common contraindication to composite placement. The phase down of teaching and use of amalgam in Malaysia is expected to occur within the next six years.

CONCLUSION

The trend to increase the teaching of posterior composites reported for other countries is confirmed by the findings from Malaysian dental schools. Notwithstanding this trend, the use of amalgam is still taught, and future studies are required to investigate the implications of the phase down of amalgam in favour of posterior composites.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Notwithstanding the increase in the teaching of posterior composites there is a pressing need to update and refine clinical guidelines for the teaching of posterior composites globally.

Comparative evaluation of the bond strength of posterior composite with different cavity configurations and different liners using a two-step etch and rinse adhesive system: In vitro study

Introduction:

Conventional Class II cavity preparations used for restoring small lesions with amalgam may be inappropriate for composite resin restorations due to the extensive cavity form, large occlusal contact area, and thin or missing margins of the tooth. Cavity preparation in the proximal areas as per the precepts of Clark is a conservative method of caries excavation and tooth preparation.

Materials and Methods:

Conventional Class II and Clark's Class II cavities were prepared on the mesial surfaces of 60 molars. All cavities were given a standard buccolingual width of 2 mm, an occlusogingival height of approximately 3.5 mm and an axial depth of 1.5 mm. These were then restored using flowable composites or resin-modified glass-ionomer cement liners and nanohybrid composites. The compressive bond strength was tested with a universal testing machine.

Results:

The compressive bond strength was the highest for Clarks Class II cavity preparation with a lining of flowable composites. Conventional Box only Class II cavities restored with flowable liners showed the next best result.

Conclusion:

Clark's class II cavity preparation can be used as efficiently as the conventional Class II box preparation with the advantage of preserving more tooth structure, more precise tooth preparation, good bond strength and better esthetics.

Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Clinical evaluations as fundamental method to prove the efficiency of restorative materials.

AIM

This study evaluated the clinical performance of restorative systems during 2 years of clinical service.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study assessed the clinical performance of restorative systems (Filtek Z250 and P60), during 2 years of clinical service, using the US Public Health Service system. The randomized and double-blind study comprising thirty volunteers. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. It was used the following criteria: marginal discoloration (MD), marginal integrity (MI), superficial texture (ST), wear (W), postoperative sensitivity (PS) and recurrent caries (RC).

RESULTS

Statistic analysis was performed using Fisher's and McNemar's exact tests and Pearsons's Chi-square in a significance level of 5%. The results at baseline and 24 months for Group I were: MD - 100, 100%; MI - 100, 88.6%; ST - 100, 94.3%; W - 100, 94.3%; PS - 100, 100%; RC - 100, 100%, of alpha scores; Group II: MD - 100, 97.1%; MI - 100, 91.4%; ST - 100, 94.3%; W - 100, 91.4%; PS - 100, 100%; RC - 100, 100%, of alpha scores. It was observed no statistical difference in the evaluated criteria and period.

CONCLUSIONS

After 24 months of evaluation, both restorative systems exhibited acceptable clinical performance.

Managing the phase-down of amalgam: Part I. Educational and training issues

Following the recently agreed Minamata Convention, a phase-down in the use of dental amalgam will become a priority for the profession. With a lead-in period of a number of years, important changes in the mind-set of the profession are required to ensure that patient safety is not compromised. Posterior composites have been a viable, and in many cases preferable, alternative to amalgam for many years. However, notwithstanding considerable developments in dental school teaching on the application and placement of posterior composites, growing evidence to support the use of composites in the restoration of posterior teeth and advances in composite systems, many practitioners remain reluctant to place composite rather than amalgam. This paper considers the present and future use of posterior composites and highlights ways in which dental school teaching and continuing professional development (CPD) may contribute to the successful phase-down, and now inevitable discontinuation, in the use of dental amalgam.

Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to analyze the survival of posterior composite restorations published within the last 19 years (1996-2015).

METHODS

In this study only prospective, clinical trials with specification of the failure rate according to Class I/II composite fillings were included. Studies were analyzed according to the observation period (all studies vs. short-term vs. long-term studies). Retrospective studies and/or open laminate studies, tunnel restorations and Class V restorations were excluded. The following variables possibly influencing the failure rate were extracted from the studies: observation period, recall rate, average age of patients, number of patients, ratio of Class I/II fillings, number of restorations, ratio of premolars/molars, operator, method of isolation, bonding generation and filler size.

RESULTS

A total of 88 studies were included for statistical analysis. The observation period of the studies varied between 1 and 17 years, while most of the studies did not last longer than 5 years. Fracture of the restorations, secondary caries and marginal gap are the main causes for failure in the first 5 years (in descending order), while fracture and secondary caries are similarly distributed in long-term studies. Variables of investigation differed greatly in significance according to the respective observation period. The observation period, the recall rate, the ratio of Class I/II fillings and the number of restorations and patients had a significant influence on the overall failure rate when including all studies (short- and long-term). A linear correlation between the observation period and the failure rate was observed. In long-term studies these variables were not significant any longer. No significant difference in the failure rates between the materials per study was observed. The most common commercial composites investigated were: Tetric Ceram, Surefil, Filtek Supreme (incl. XT), Filtek Z250. The mean annual failure rate was 1.46% (±1.74%) for short-term studies and 1.97% (±1.53) for long-term studies. There is still a big need for clinical studies lasting longer than 5 years, as failure rates of composite restorations in posterior teeth increases with longer observation periods.

SIGNIFICANCE

A decreasing failure rate with an increasing recall rate as observed in our study suggests a patient selection in regard to availability and dental awareness. Internationally standardized evaluation criteria are mandatory in order to allow comparisons of the outcomes of clinical studies.

Knowledge and attitudes of general dental practitioners towards posterior composite restorations in northern saudi arabia

INTRODUCTION

The restoration of posterior teeth with composite restoration is a common clinical practice nowadays. Opinions regarding posterior composite restorations vary among dentists. The aim of the present study was to determine the knowledge and opinions of general dental practitioners towards composite resins for posterior teeth restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was devised to elicit information regarding placement of composite restoration in posterior teeth in northern Saudi Arabia. It was distributed to 230 dentists by hand and e-mail. A response rate 136 (59%) was obtained. The questionnaire sought details about case selection criteria for composite restoration, problems associated with composites and reasons for selecting composite restoration in posterior teeth. The data was processed and analysed by SPSS statistical software 19. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for various responses of the participants.

RESULTS

Regarding the selection of composite restoration in posterior teeth, 97% of the dentists did not prefer composite placement for class I restoration with heavy occlusal contacts. 83% of the participants did not select composite for class II restoration. 78% of the respondents opted for restoring composites in small defects. Patients' aesthetic demands (90%), amalgam replacement (22%) and restoration of endodontically treated teeth (42%) were the contributing factors. Regarding the problems associated with posterior composite restorations. Recurrent caries (87%), post-operative sensitivity (84%), restoration fracture (83%) and polymerization shrinkage (73%) were the major problems reported by respondents associated with composite restorations. The other minor concerns were wear (60%), contact build up in case of class II cavity restorations (51%) and isolation for composite restorations (36%). Conservative cavity preparation (78%), aesthetics (73%) and patient preference (65%) were the main reasons for choosing composite restoration for the posterior teeth.

CONCLUSION

Posterior composites are not popular among dentists practicing in northern Saudi Arabia and there is a need of continued professional education and clinical training for the dentists for posterior composite restorations.

Functional and Aesthetic Guidelines for Stress-Reduced Direct Posterior Composite Restorations

Amalgam has been used in the restoration of structurally compromised posterior teeth for many years. When placing large amalgam restorations, replacement of weak cusps with restorative material is recommended to prevent tooth fracture. This recommendation can be modified with new guidelines using modern adhesive techniques. Semidirect and indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations have progressively replaced amalgam restorations over the past 20 years. Lately, single visit direct resin-bonded composite (RBC) restorations have also been used as a viable alternative to conventional indirect restorations. This paper is intended to introduce a step-by-step protocol for the direct restoration of structurally compromised posterior teeth using RBCs with stress-reducing protocols.

Clinical Evaluation of Stress-reducing Direct Composite Restorations in Structurally Compromised Molars: A 2-year Report

Objective

To evaluate the clinical performance of class II large-size direct composite restorations.

Materials and Methods

Fifty (50) patients 18 years or older were included in this clinical trial restoring 75 vital molar teeth with large-size cavities.

Inclusion Criteria

Occlusal extension greater than two-thirds the intercuspal distance and proximal extension greater than half the distance between line angles. Teeth with residual cavity walls less than 1 mm and with one or more cusps involved were excluded. Teeth were randomly divided in three groups. Group 1: Opti-Bond FL; group 2: Scotchbond 1 XT; group 3: PQ1. Total-etching was performed using 35% phosphoric acid followed by the application of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in the three groups. All teeth were restored using Vit-l-escence microhybrid composite resin. The proximal surface was built up first, followed by dentin and enamel occlusal surface stratification; wedge-shaped increments of composite resin were placed and cured using the UltraLume V curing light through a combination of pulse and progressive curing techniques.

Results

Restorations were evaluated at six-month intervals during the two-year period using a modified US Public Health Service criteria by two independent evaluators precalibrated at 85% reliability. No failures were reported and α scores were recorded for all parameters. Statistical analysis was performed using a χ2 test and the Fisher exact test (χ2=10.6; p=0.001). No teeth exhibited sensitivity in the three groups both at the two-week recall and two-year follow-up.

Attitudes of some European dental undergraduate students to the placement of direct restorative materials in posterior teeth

The aim of this article was to report on the attitudes, opinions and confidences of final year dental students in three European schools towards the restoration of posterior teeth and in particular towards the use of amalgam and resin composite. One hundred and twenty-eight pre-piloted questionnaires were distributed to final year dental students in Cardiff, Dublin and Malmö. The questionnaire sought information relating to various opinions and attitudes towards the use of amalgam and resin composite in posterior teeth. Information was returned anonymously. Ninety-one completed questionnaires were returned (response rate=71%; Cardiff: n =40, Dublin: n=24, Malmö: n=27). Ninety-three per cent of Malmö students (n=24), 67% of Dublin students (n=16) and 60% of Cardiff students (n=24) reported that they feel confident when placing posterior resin composites. One hundred per cent of Malmö students (n=27), 75% of Cardiff students (n=30) and 33% of Dublin students (n=8) would prefer to have a resin composite rather than amalgam, placed in one of their own posterior teeth. Eighty-five per cent of Malmö students (n=23), 30% of Cardiff students (n=12) and 25% of Dublin students (n=6) perceive amalgam as being harmful to the environment. For the restoration of a posterior tooth in a pregnant female, 44% of students (n=40) would place a resin composite restoration, and 7% (n=6) would place an amalgam restoration, while 32% (n=29) would place a temporary restoration. Students at Malmö report that they place more posterior resin composites and have greater confidence at placing posterior resin composites than students at Cardiff or Dublin. There was confusion relating to the choice of restorative materials for pregnant females. Large variations in restorative strategies among graduates must be considered as dental professionals can practice in all countries within the European Union.