Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 71–79 | Cite as

Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation

Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of this randomized, clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of composite resin materials used for fillings and indirect inlays. Twenty-eight sets of five class II restorations (two fillings, three inlays) were placed in 88 premolars and 52 molars in 28 adults. Brilliant Dentin and Estilux Posterior were used for both fillings and inlays, and SR-Isosit for inlays only. After 11 years, 27 sets of restorations (96%) were evaluated clinically using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Replaced or repaired restorations were observed in 16% of the fillings and 17% of the inlays, and a further 5% of the restorations were replaced for reasons not related to the restoration. The remaining 107 restorations exhibited optimal ratings in 30% of the fillings and 12% of the inlays (P<0.05) and acceptable ratings in 70% and 88%, respectively. The reasons for failure were fracture of restoration (four fillings, five inlays), secondary caries (two fillings, four inlays), fracture of tooth (two inlays), loss of proximal contact (two fillings), and loss of restoration (one inlay). Failures were seen more frequently in molar than premolar restorations (P<0.05), with no significant difference between fillings and inlays or between the five types of restoration (P>0.05).

Keywords

Clinical trial Composite resin Direct and indirect restorations Long-term behavior Posterior teeth 

References

  1. 1.
    Berg NG, Dérand T (1997) A 5-year evaluation of ceramic inlays (CEREC). Swed Dent J 21:121–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke FJT, Watts DC, Wilson NHF, Wilson MA (1991) Current status and rationale for composite inlays and onlays. Br Dent J 170:269–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davidsson CL, deGee AJ, Feilzer A (1984) The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res 63:1396–1399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietschi D, Scampa U, Campanile G, Holz J (1995) Marginal adaptation and seal of direct and indirect Class II composite resin restorations: an in vitro evaluation. Quintessence Int 26:127–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donly KJ, Jensen ME, Triolo P, Chan D (1999) A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years. Quintessence Int 30:163–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrnford L, Dérand T (1984) Cervical gap formation in class II composite resin restorations. Swed Dent J 8:15–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ericsson Y (1959) Clinical investigation of the salivary buffering action. Acta Odontol Scand 17:131–165Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Willems G, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1995) Clinical and semi-quantitative marginal analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years. J Dent 23:329–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hannig M (1996) Das Randschlussverhalten von Kompositinlays aus SR-Isosit. In-vivo Resultate nach sieben Jahren. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 51:595–597Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heymann HO, Bayne SC, Strudevant JR, Wilder AD, Robertson TM (1996) The clinical performance of CAD-CAM-generated ceramic inlays: a four-year study. J Am Dent Assoc 127:1171–1181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hickel R, Manhart J, García-Godoy F (2000) Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations. Am J Dent 13:43–53Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krejci I, Güntert A, Lutz F (1994) Scanning electron microscopic and clinical examination of composite resin inlays/onlays up to 12 months in situ. Quintessence Int 25:403–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leiskar J, Henaug T, Thoresen NR, Nordbø H, von der Fehr FR (1999) Clinical performance of indirect composite resin inlays/onlays in a dental school: observations up to 34 months. Acta Odontol Scand 57:216–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lutz F, Krejci I, Oldenburg TR (1986) Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite resin restorations: a new restorative technique. Quintessence Int 17:777–784PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mjör IA (1997) The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 55:58–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mühleman HR, Son S (1971) Gingival sulcus bleeding—a leading symptom in initial gingivitis. Helv Odontol Acta 15:107–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pallesen U, Van Dijken JWV (2000) An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the Cerec CAD/CAM system. Eur J Oral Sci 108:239–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E (1990) A comparison of accuracy in seating and gap formation for three inlay/onlay techniques. Oper Dent 15:129–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peutzfeldt A (2001) Indirect resin and ceramic systems. Oper Dent 26 [Suppl 6]:153–176Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qvist V (1985) Marginal adaptation of composite restorations performed in vivo with different acid-etch restorative procedures. Scand J Dent Res 93:68–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qvist V, Qvist J (1985) Replica patterns on composite restorations performed in vivo with different acid-etch restorative procedures. Scand J Dent Res 93:360–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qvist V, Thylstrup A (1989) Pulpal reactions to resin restorations. In: Anusavice KJ (ed) Quality evaluation of dental restorations. Quintessence, Chicago, pp 291–299Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjör IA (1990) Placement and longevity of tooth colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 48:305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qvist V (1993) Resin restorations: leakage, bacteria, pulp. Endod Dent Traumatol 9:127–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Qvist V, Strøm C (1993) 11-Year assessment of class-III resin restorations completed with two restorative procedures. Acta Odontol Scand 51:253–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann K-H, Hickel R (1999) Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 82:391–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 80–87, 111–124, 174–183Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sillness J, Löe H (1964) Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand 22:121–135Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sjögren G, Molin M, Van Dijken JWV (1998) A 5-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays (Cerec) cemented with a dual-cured or chemically cured resin composite luting agent. Acta Odontol Scand 56:263-267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P (2001) A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 32:199–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Dijken JWV (1986) A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller and hybrid composite resin fillings. A 6-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand 44:357–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Dijken JWV (1994) A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 52:368-376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van Dijken JWV, Höglund-Åberg C, Olofsson AL (1998) Fired ceramic inlays: a 6-year follow-up. J Dent 26:219–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Dijken JWV (2000) Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent 28:299–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Willems G, Noack MJ, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Roulet J-F, Vanherle G (1992) Marginal adaptation of four tooth-coloured inlay systems in vivo. J Dent 20:18–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL (1996) Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? J Dent Res 75:871–878Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wassell RW, Walls AWG, McCabe JF (1995) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results. Br Dent J 179:343–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wassel RW, Walls AWG, McCabe JF (1999) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wendt SL, Leinfelder KF (1992) Clinical evaluation of a heat-treated resin composite inlay: 3-year results. Am J Dent 5:258–262PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cariology and Endodontics, School of DentistryUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen NDenmark

Personalised recommendations