Fogorvosi szemle, 2012 (105. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)

2012-06-01 / 2. szám

52

FOGORVOSI SZEMLE ■ 105. évf. 2. sz. 2012.

2. Aoyama T, Aida J, Takehara J, Morita M: Factors associated with the longevity of restorations in posterior teeth. J Dent Health 2008; 58: 16-24.

3. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T; Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2008; 8: 83-84.

4. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A: Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Invest 2003; 7: 63-70.

5. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN: An alternative method to reduce polymerization shrinkage in direct posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2002; 133: 1387-1398.

6. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R: Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 2001 ; 3: 185-194.

7. Giachetti L, Scaminaci RD, Bambi C, Grandini R: A review of polymerization shrinkage stress: Current techniques for posterior direct resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7:1-14.

8. González-López S, Sanz-Chinesta MV, Ceballos-Garcia L, De Haro-Gasquet F, González-Rodriguez P: Influence of cavity type and size of composite restorations on cuspal flexure. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006; 11: 536-540.

9. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M És Mtsai: FDI World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12:259-272.

10. Jokstad A, MJÖR IA, Qvist V: The age of restorations in situ. Acta Odontol Scand 1994; 52: 234-242.

11. Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Gurgan S: Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations. Op Dent 2009; 34: 11-17.

12. Kőhalmi T, Gorzó I, Mari A, Boda K, Nagy K: Különböző tömőanyagok széli zárásának in vitro összehasonlítása II. A preparálás helyének és módjának a hatása a széli zárásra különböző tömőanyagok esetén. Fogorv Szle 1999; 92: 111-119.

13. Kőhalmi T, Gorzó I, Mari A, Nagy K: Különböző tömőanyagok széli zárásának in vitro összehasonlítása I. Az alkalmazott tömőanyagok hatása a széli zárásra. Fogon/ Szle 1999; 92: 87-95.

14. Köhler B, Rasmusson Cg, Ödman P: A five-year clinical evaluation of Class 11 composite resin restorations. J Dent 2000; 28: 111-116.

15. Kubo S: Longevity of resin composite restorations. Jap Dent Sei Rev 2011; 47: 43-55.

16. Leinfelder KF: New developments in resin restorative systems. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 573-581.

17. Lempel E, Tóth V, Szalma J, Szabó Gy: Minőségi követelményrendszer alkalmazása kerámia restaurációk ellenőrző vizsgálatában. Fogorv Szle 2006; 99: 3-8.

18. Lindberg A, Van Díjkén JW, Lindberg M: Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities. J Dent 2007; 35: 124-129.

19. Lopes GC, Oliveira GM: Direct composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2006; 27: 572-580.

20. Lundin SA, Koch G: Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J1999; 23: 165-171.

21. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hamm G, Hickel R: Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 481-508.

22. Nyárasdy I, Herczegh B, Pados R, Pőstényi J: Kompozíciós tömések klinikai kontrollvizsgálata. Fogorv Szle 1981; 74: 201-203.

23. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Rooters JM, Loomans BAC: A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 2-8.

24. Padr R, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF: A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006; 134: 427-435.

25. Pallesen U, Qvist V: Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Invest 2003; 7:71-79.

26. Ryge G: Clinical criteria. Inter Dent J 1980; 30: 347-358

27. Sarrett DC: Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 9-20.

28. Spreafico Re, Krejci I, Dietschi D: Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent 2005; 33: 499-507.

29. Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M: Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quint Int 2003; 34: 418-426.

30. Van Díjkén JWV, Sunnegardh-Grönberg K, Lindberg A: Clinical long-term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 years evaluation. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1101-1107.

31. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, Delong R, Douglas WH: Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 554-564.

Dr. Lempel E, Dr. Szalma J, Dr. Jeges S, Dr. Kende D, Dr. Krajczár K, Dr. Nagy Á, Dr. Tóth V:

Retrospective Study of Direct Composite Restorations According to the USPHS Criteria

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and describe the occurrence of different deficiencies of composite restorations in molar and premolar teeth. Further aim was to investigate possible correlations between occurring malformations and the localization or size of the restorations. 240 class II composite restorations (in 85 patients) were involved in the study. Control examinations were carried out five years after restorations, according to the United States Public Health Services’ criteria. Namely, anatomic form, marginal integrity, marginal stain, color stability, surface smoothness, and the presence of secondary caries or fractures of the restorations. The associations between variables were calculated by bivariate analyses using either Pearson chi-square or Fisher tests. P< 0.05 was considered significant. In 0.8% of the fillings, secondary caries and in 0.4% of the cases, fracture was found as a failure. The frequency of adjacent deficiencies were found as follows: color instability, 12.5%; marginal stain, 20.8%; anatomic deformity, 15.0%; failure of marginal integrity, 8.8%; and surface roughness, 2.5%. Color instability was significantly more frequent in premolar teeth, than in molars (P= 0.031). Color instability (P= 0.015), marginal stain (P< 0.001) and anatomic form malformation (P= 0.002) occurred more frequently in MOD restorations than in MO/ OD fillings.

Our results suggest that class II restorations are correct both functionally and esthetically in 98.8% of the cases, even after a 5-year-period.

Key words: direct composite restoration, USPHS criteria, retrospective study