J Korean Acad Conserv Dent.  2002 May;27(3):284-289. 10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.3.284.

1 year follow-up study of direct and indirect composite restorations

• Park SH

• KMID: 1987287
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.3.284

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the direct and indirect composite restorations which had been placed for 1 year.
METHODS
The composite restorations which had been placed between 1999. Mar and 1999, Dec was evaluated after 1 year. For direct restorations, Spectrum (Dentsply, USA) and Z100 (3M, USA) were used in the anterior teeth and Surefil (Dentsply, USA) were used. For class V restorations of anterior and posterior teeth, Spectrum was used. For indirect restorations, Targis/Vectris system (Vivadent/Ivoclar, Liechtenstein) was used. 2 examiners evaluated marginal quality, proximal contact, discoloration, presence of 2nd caries, loss of filling and hypersensitivity of restorations. The restorations was clinically evaluated by modified methods based on USPHS.
RESULTS
60 teeth were evaluated. 59 were clinically acceptable and 1 restoration which was placed in class v cavity in the posterior tooth was fallen out. In most cases, the restorations were clinically acceptable. For restorations which had been directly placed in the class II cavities, loose proximal contact was indicated as the main complaints.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of Anterior and posterior restorations which bad been directly or indirectly placed for 1 year were clinically acceptable. For posterior teeth, loose proximal contact was indicated as the main problem in the directly placed Class II restorations. Long term clinical study is needed.

Keyword

Composite resin; Direct restoration; Indirect restoration; Complication

MeSH Terms

Follow-Up Studies
Hypersensitivity
Tooth

Reference

1. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, Holston AM, Gingell JC. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int. 1991. 22:143–151.

2. Wilson NHF, Margaret AW, Wastell DG, Smith GA. A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative materials: five-year results. Quintessence Int. 1988. 19:675–681.

3. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Willems G, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Clinical and semiquantitative amrgin analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years. J Dent. 1995. 23:329–338.

4. Bessing C, Lundqvist P. A 1 year clinical examination of indirect composite resin inlay: a preliminary report. Quintessence Int. 1991. 22:153–157.

5. Browning WD, Dennison JB. A survey of failure modes in composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 1996. 21:160–166.

6. Powell LV, Johnson GH, Gordon GE. Factors associated with clinical success of cervical abrasion/erosion restoration. Oper Dent. 1995. 20:7–13.

7. Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Two-year clinical evaluation of two dentine-adhesive systems in cervical lesion. J Dent. 1993. 21:195–202.

8. Fuks AB, chosack A, Eidelman E. A Two-year evaluation in vivo and in vitro of class 2 composites. Oper Dent. 1990. 15:219–223.