1 / 28

LITERATURE

COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS - Long term controlled clinical studies. Review. Study study design obervation period results (YFR) Mair, 1998 longitudinal 10Y 0.7%

earlene
Download Presentation

LITERATURE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS - Long term controlled clinical studies Review Study study design obervation periodresults (YFR) Mair, 1998 longitudinal 10Y0.7% Mertz-Fairhurst et al, 1991longitudinal 10Y2.0% Raskin et al, 1999longitudinal 10Y4-5% Wilder et al, 1999longitudinal 17Y1.4% Gaengler et al, 2001longitudinal 10Y 2.5% Palessen & Qvist, 2003longitudinal11Y0.7% da Rosa Rodolpho et al, 2006longitudinal 17Y 2.04% LITERATURE

  2. Class II Sandwich GIC/ Resin Composite - In vivo STUDIES Review Study n. of restorations observ. periodresults Gaengler et al, 2001194 GIC/RC Class II 10 Years 74.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures++ da Rosa Rodolpho et al, 2006 282 GIC/RC Class II 17 Years 65.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures ++ LITERATURE

  3. Class II Sandwich with rmGIC - In vitro STUDIES Review Studyexp. protocollevel of evidenceresults KosmasTolidis et al, 1998volum. shrinkage rmGIC liner reduces shrinkage Wibowo & Stockton, 2001 microleakagermGIC liner < FRC liner Dietrich et al, 1999 marg. adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > GIC or full Cp (3M, ESPE,Vivadent,GC, Dentpsly) Dietrich et al, 2000 marg. Adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > Full CP (Z100/Vitremer) LITERATURE

  4. Class II Sandwich with rmGIC - In vitro STUDIES Review Studyexp. protocollevel of evidenceresults Dietschi et al, 2002 marg. adaptation (SEM) Compomer > Full Cp (Dyract) Closed sandwich Config. !!! LITERATURE

  5. Sandwich with rmGIC - In vivo STUDIES Review Studyn. of restorationsobserv. periodresults Lindberg et al, 2000n= 2o class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E &D SEM marg. adapt. for PMRC / RC Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2002 n= 40 class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E&D SEM marg. adapt. rmGIC / RC Opdam et al, 2007 n= 458 class II 9 Years higher failure rate USPHS with rmGIC LITERATURE

  6. Sandwich Class II Vitremer/Z100 - In vivo STUDIES Review Study n. of restorations observ. periodresults Van Dijken et al, 1999274 open sandwich 3 Years 2.5% tooth fractures class II & 6 exp. cond. 4% dissolution rmGIC Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2004 220 open sandwich 6-7 Years 19%/34% failures class II & 6 exp. cond. dissolution rmGIC ++ failure = tooth & rest. fractures <1% AFR @ 3Y 3.16% AFR @ 6Y 4.85% AFR @7Y LITERATURE

  7. Class II “Sandwich” with FRC - In vitro STUDIES Review Studyexp. protocollevel of evidenceresults Chuanget al, 2004marg. adaptation (SEM)thin FRC > Dewaele et al, 2006 marg. adaptation (LM)  gaps if: (12 exp. rubbery liners) flow,  flexibility,  shrinkage LITERATURE

  8. “Class II “Sandwich” with FRC - In vivo STUDIES Review StudyComparisonobserv. periodresults Ernst et al, 2003Class II with / without flow2Yno difference Lindberg et al, 2005Class II with / without flow § 1mno difference Efes et al, 2006 Class II with / without flow2Yno difference LITERATURE

  9. CHOICE between Direct & Indirect Restorations: Literature Review Direct vs Indirect Restorations in Medium Size Cavities

  10. Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Medium Size Cavities Review Studyresults van Dijken JW, 2000The difference in failure rate between the resin composite direct technique and the inlay technique was not large, indicating that the more time-consuming and expensive inlay technique may not be justified Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF, 2000In this study the direct inlay technique gave no clinical advantage over conventional direct restorations Pallesen U, Qvist V, 2003 No significant difference between composite fillings and composite inlays LITERATURE

  11. Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Medium Size Cavities Review Studyresults Spreafico RC, Dietschi D, Krejci I, 2005The clinical performance and the marginal adaptation did not show significative differences LITERATURE

  12. CHOICE between Direct & Indirect Restorations: Literature Review Direct vs Indirect Restorations in Large Cavities

  13. Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Large Size Cavities Review Studyresults Klaiber and Haller, 1989Luted restorations permit a better marginal adaptation and seal when compared to the direct composite resin restorations Milleding, 1992 Agosto,1993 Lida et al, 2003 To preventmarginal microfracture, an adhesiveinlay restoration is preferable for a large class II cavity van Dijken JW. 2000 The direct inlay / onlay technique is recommended to be used in class II cavities of high caries risk patients with cervical margins placed in dentin LITERATURE

  14. Clinical trials:Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study BRILLANT 1y 24 100% 0%Fülleman et al. 1992 BRILLANT 2Y 30 80% 10%Haas et al. 1992 BRILLANT-ESTILUX 1Y 29 96.5% 3.4%Thordrup et al. 1994 BRILLANT 3y 71 92% 2.7%Wassel et al. 1996 BRILLANT-APH5Y 24 100% 0% Wiedmer et al. 1997

  15. Clinical trials:Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study BRILLANT 5Y 21 100% 0%Van Dijken et al.1996 BRILLANT 5y 15 85% 3%Thordrup et al. 2001 VITADUR N 1585%3% CEREC COS2.021592.5%1.5% OCCLUSIN 3y 60 96.7% 1.1% Wendt et al. 1992

  16. Clinical trials:Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study TETRIC - PERTAC 2y 45 93% 3.5%Schleibenbogen et al. 1992 TETRIC - PERTAC 3Y 30 93% 2.3%Manhart et al. 2000 APH 1Y 29 96.5% 3.4%Krejci et al. 1994 TETRIC - Z1004-6Y 50 94% 1.2%Leirskar et al. 2003

  17. Clinical trials:Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study Annual Failure Rate range = 0-10% « Without extremes » range1.1-3.5%

  18. Clinical trials:Laboratory Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study SR ISOSIT-CONCEPT1y 34 88.2% 11.8%Bessing et al. 1991 SR ISOSIT-CONCEPT 7Y 36 75% 3.6%Donly et al. 1999 SR ISOSIT-CONCEPT 11Y 135 83% 1.6%Pallesen et al. 2003 VISIO-GEM6y 118 41% 9.8%Krämer et al. 1996

  19. Clinical trials:Laboratory Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study TARGIS1.5Y 43 100% 0%Monaco et al. 2001 TARGIS1Y 118 41% 9.8%Yilmaz et al. 2003 TARGIS 2Y (0.5-4Y) 40 100% 0%Kukrer et al. 2004 SIGNUM3Y 113 97.4% 0.86%Barone et al. 2008

  20. Clinical trials:Laboratory Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study SR ISOSIT11Y 84 83% 1.54%Palessen et al, 2003 BRILLANT 28 84% 1.45%ESTILUX 28 TPH direct3.5Y 2x22 100% 0%Spreafico et al, 2005 indirect 100%0%

  21. Clinical trials:Laboratory Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study 9 studies YFR = 0% – 11.8% 0% - 3.6% (without extremes)

  22. Clinical trials:Feldspathic Porcelains Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study MIRAGE2y 310 95.8% 2.1%Jensen et al. 1988 MIRAGE 3Y 50 96.6% 1.3%Hoglung et al. 1994 MIRAGE 4Y 50 100% 0%Friedl et al. 1997 MIRAGE 6Y 58 88% 2%van Dijken et al 1998 MICROBOND-FORTUNE 10y 183 97% 0.3%Fuzzi et al. 1998

  23. Clinical trials:Feldspatic Porcelains Material Duration n= survival YFR study MIRAGE 5Y 20 95.8% 1.6%Molin et al, 2000 CEREC 20 96.6% " EMPRESS 20 100% -- GOLD 20 100% -- COSMOTECH II 8Y 45 80% 2.5% Hayashi et al, 2000 Diff. FP brands 3Y 47 90% 3.6%Manhart et al, 2000 EMPRESS 24 100% --

  24. Clinical trials:Feldspatic Porcelains Material Duration n= survival YFR study LFC DUCERAM 2.1Y 45 Gemalanaz et al, 2001 (3-46m) LC: rmGIC77% 15.7 LC: composite 87% 6.2 9 studies YFR = 0% – 6.2%

  25. Clinical trials:Pressed Ceramics Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study EMPRESS1y 130 97.5% 1.3%Studer et al. 1996 EMPRESS 4.5Y 125 95.6% 1%Fradeani et al. 1997 EMPRESS 6Y 138 94.9% 0.9%Lehner et al. 1998 EMPRESS4y 96 93% 1.8%Krämer et al. 1999 EMPRESS6Y 39 93% 1.2%Krämer et al. 2000 100%marginal ditching

  26. Clinical trials:Pressed Ceramics Material Duration n= survival YFR study EMPRESS4Y 21 100%--Barghi et al, 2002 EMPRESS 2Y 86 100%--Coehlo Santos et al, 2004 LFC DUCERAM 86 100% EMPRESS3Y 40 100%-- Fabianelli et al, 2006 EMPRESS4Y 130 93% 1.75%Naeselius et al. 2008 EMPRESS12Y 96 84% 1.33%Franckenberger et al. 2008 EMPRESS6Y 64 94% 1.05%Galiatsatos et al. 2008

  27. Review J Can Dent Assoc 2002;68:233-237. Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-Empress ceramic restorations—a literature review. El-Mowafy O, Brochu JF. LITERATURE 6 studies YFR = 0.88% – 1.28%

  28. J Adhesive Dent. 2001;3:45-64. Longevity of Restorations in Posterior Teeth and Reasons for Failures Hickel R, Manhart J. Aust Dent . 1999;44:157-168. The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: a review Bergman MA. • Main failure pattern of porcelain inlays is bulk fracture • Contraindicated in case of bruxism • Require minimal dimensions • Differential wear between ceramics & luting composite • Wear of opposing structures

More Related