Back to Browse Journals » Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry » Volume 5

Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function

Authors Bohaty BS, Ye Q, Misra A, Sene F, Spencer P

Received 24 December 2012

Accepted for publication 5 February 2013

Published 15 May 2013 Volume 2013:5 Pages 33—42

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S42044

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 4

Brenda S Bohaty,1,2 Qiang Ye,3 Anil Misra,3,4 Fabio Sene,6 Paulette Spencer3,5

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry, Kansas City, MO, USA; 2Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO, USA; 3Bioengineering Research Center, 4Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, 5Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA; 6Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Londrina, School of Dentistry, Londrina, Brazil

Abstract: Restoring posterior teeth with resin-based composite materials continues to gain popularity among clinicians, and the demand for such aesthetic restorations is increasing. Indeed, the most common aesthetic alternative to dental amalgam is resin composite. Moderate to large posterior composite restorations, however, have higher failure rates, more recurrent caries, and increased frequency of replacement. Investigators across the globe are researching new materials and techniques that will improve the clinical performance, handling characteristics, and mechanical and physical properties of composite resin restorative materials. Despite such attention, large to moderate posterior composite restorations continue to have a clinical lifetime that is approximately one-half that of the dental amalgam. While there are numerous recommendations regarding preparation design, restoration placement, and polymerization technique, current research indicates that restoration longevity depends on several variables that may be difficult for the dentist to control. These variables include the patient's caries risk, tooth position, patient habits, number of restored surfaces, the quality of the tooth–restoration bond, and the ability of the restorative material to produce a sealed tooth–restoration interface. Although clinicians tend to focus on tooth form when evaluating the success and failure of posterior composite restorations, the emphasis must remain on advancing our understanding of the clinical variables that impact the formation of a durable seal at the restoration–tooth interface. This paper presents an update of existing technology and underscores the mechanisms that negatively impact the durability of posterior composite restorations in permanent teeth.

Keywords: composites, bonding, dental restorations

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Readers of this article also read:

Monitoring cancer stem cells: insights into clinical oncology

Lin SC, Xu YC, Gan ZH, Han K, Hu HY, Yao Y, Huang MZ, Min DL

OncoTargets and Therapy 2016, 9:731-740

Published Date: 11 February 2016

Increased serum levels of interleukin-10 predict poor prognosis in extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma patients receiving asparaginase-based chemotherapy

Wang H, Wang L, Wuxiao ZJ, Huang HQ, Jiang WQ, Li ZM, Lu Y, Xia ZJ

OncoTargets and Therapy 2015, 8:2589-2599

Published Date: 14 September 2015

Companion diagnostics and molecular imaging-enhanced approaches for oncology clinical trials

Van Heertum RL, Scarimbolo R, Ford R, Berdougo E, O’Neal M

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2015, 9:5215-5223

Published Date: 11 September 2015

Ageism and its clinical impact in oncogeriatry: state of knowledge and therapeutic leads

Schroyen S, Adam S, Jerusalem G, Missotten P

Clinical Interventions in Aging 2015, 10:117-125

Published Date: 31 December 2014

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in the management of ovarian cancer

Gabriella Ferrandina, Giacomo Corrado, Angelo Licameli, et al

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2010, 6:463-483

Published Date: 29 September 2010

Use of electronic medical records in oncology outcomes research

Gena Kanas, Libby Morimoto, Fionna Mowat, et al

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2010, 2:1-14

Published Date: 24 February 2010