Wilson NHF, Burke FJT, Brunton PA, Creanor S, Hosey M-T, Manocci F. Dental practice in the UK in 2015/2016 Part 2: Aspects of direct restorations, bleaching, endodontics and paediatric dentistry. Br Dent J. 2019; 226:110-114
Brocklehurst P, Hoare Z. How to design a randomised controlled trial. Br Dent J. 2017; 222:721-725
Burke FJT. End of the road for the randomised controlled trial in restorative dentistry?. Dent Update. 2017; 44:806-808
Alcaraz MGR, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejifor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (3)
Norman RD, Wright JS, Rydberg RD, Felkner LL. A five-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64:523-529
Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations in a multicentre clinical trial. J Dent. 1989; 17:S10-S17
Cunningham J, Mair LH, Foster MA, Ireland RS. Clinical evaluation of three posterior composite and two amalgam restorative materials. Br Dent J. 1990; 169:319-327
Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters J, Loomans BAC. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007; 23
Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans M-C DNJM. 12 year survival of composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:1063-1067
Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Braspenning JCC, Huysmans M-C DNJM. Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices: descriptive study out of a practice-based network. J Dent. 2016; 46:12-17
Naghipur S, Pesun I, Nowalowski A, Kim A. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116:336-339
Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, DeRouen TA. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite restorations placed in a randomised controlled trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138:775-783
Kopperud SE, Tweit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012; 120:539-548
Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR. Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent. 2002; 27:488-492
Palotie U, Eronen AK, Vehkalahti F, Vehkalahti MM. Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25-to 30-year-olds attending a Public Dental Service a 13-year observation. J Dent. 2017; 62:13-17
van de Sande FH, Rodolpho PA, Basso GR, Patias R, da Rosa QF, Demarco FF, Opdam NJ, Cenci MS. 18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:669-675
van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Rodolpho PA, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Cenci MS. Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res. 2013; 92:(7 Suppl)78S-83S
Lempel E, Toth A, Fabian T, Krajczar K, Szalma J. Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:115-122
Pallesen U, van Dijken JW, Halken J, Hallonsten AL, Hoigaard R. A prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth of children and adolescents in Public Dental Health Service: reasons for replacement. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:819-827
Pallesen U, van Dijken JW, Halken J, Hallonsten AL, Hoigaard R. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent. 2013; 41:297-306
Baldissera RA, Correa MB, Schuch HS, Collares K, Nascimento GG, Jardim PS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth?. J Dent. 2013; 41:1027-1035
Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:955-963
da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent. 2006; 34:427-435
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9:469-475
Opdam N, van de Sande F, Bronkhorst E, Cenci M, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014; 93:943-949
Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:87-101
Astvaldsdottir A, Daerhamn J, van Dijken JWV, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranieus S, Nilsson M. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults a systematic review. J Dent. 2015; 43:934-954
Beck F, Lettner S, Graf A, Bitriol B, Dumitrescu N, Bauer P, Moritz A, Schedle A. Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996–2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:958-985
Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, dos Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43:1043-1050
da Viega AMA, Cunha AC, Ferriera DMTP, da Silva Fidalgo TK, Chianca TK, Reis KR, Maia LC. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016; 54:1-12
Alvanforoush N, Palamara J, Wong RH, Burrow MF. Comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995–2005 and 2006–2016 periods. Aust Dent J. 2017; 62:132-145
Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 10: Key findings from a 10 million restoration dataset. Br Dent J. 2018; 225:1011-1018
Nordbo H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR. Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int. 1998; 29
Tobi H, Kreulen CM, Vondeling H, van Amerongen WE. Cost-effectiveness of composite resins and amalgam in the replacement of amalgam Class II restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999; 27:137-143
Periera CT, Albuquerque E, Barbosa S, Lopes L, Calazas F, Manns S Clinical time and post-operative sensitivity using bulk fill composites with Universal adhesives. J Dent Res. 2018; 97:(Spec Iss B)
Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14:349-366
Survival rates of resin composite restorations in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth F J Trevor Burke Louis Mackenzie Adrian CC Shortall Dental Update 2024 46:6, 707-709.
The use of resin composite for routine restoration of cavities in posterior teeth is now commonplace, and will increase further following the Minamata Agreement and patient requests for tooth-coloured restorations in their posterior teeth. It is therefore relevant to evaluate the published survival rates of such restorations. A Medline search identified 144 possible studies, this being reduced to 24 when inclusion criteria were introduced. Of these, ten directly compared amalgam and composite, eight were cohort studies, and six were systematic reviews. It was concluded that posterior composites may provide restorations of satisfactory longevity and with survival rates generally similar to those published on amalgam restorations. However, the ability of the operator in placing the restoration may have a profound effect.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: With the increasing use of composite for restorations in posterior teeth, it is relevant to note that these may provide good rates for survival.
Article
Resin composite has been an alternative material to dental amalgam since the first dedicated ‘posterior composite’ material Occlusin™ (ICI Dental, Macclesfield, UK) was introduced in 1985. More recently, resin composite has become a central component of direct restorative dentistry, as a result of increasing popularity among patients because of the good aesthetics of resin composite restorations (Figure 1),1 and given patient concerns relating to the use of a mercury-containing product.2 The increasing use of resin composite materials in posterior teeth (hitherto termed ‘posterior composites’) has been given added impetus, after July 2017, when the use of amalgam was banned for use in primary teeth and for children under the age of 15 years of age and in pregnant and lactating women.3 In addition, results of questionnaire-based research in the UK in 2015 has indicated that respondents placed almost as many ‘posterior composites’ in molar teeth in Class II cavities as amalgams for the first time (48% composite vs 52% amalgam).4 For these reasons, it is therefore considered relevant to review the survival rates of resin composite restorations placed in posterior teeth in loadbearing situations.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
