Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 63–70 | Cite as

Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review

  • A. Brunthaler
  • F. König
  • T. Lucas
  • W. Sperr
  • A. Schedle


This review is a survey of prospective studies on the clinical performance of posterior resin composites published between 1996 and 2002. Material, patient- and operator-specific data, observation periods, isolation methods of the operative field, and failure rates are detailed in tables. The data were evaluated statistically in order to assess the role of materials (filler size, bonding system, base materials [e.g. glass ionomer cements], and lining materials), study design, and personnel on failure rates. The primary reasons for composite failure were secondary caries, restoration fracture, and marginal defects. The influence of different commercial material brands on failure rates was not evaluated due to the great variety of test substances and the lack of material-specific documentation. Effects of the isolation method of the operative field (rubber dam or cotton rolls) and the professional status of operators (university or general dentist) on composite failure rates were not found to be significant. Observation periods varied from 1 to 17 years, and failure rates ranged between 0% and 45%. A linear correlation between failure rate and observation period was found (P<0.0001). Thirteen of 24 studies were terminated after 3 years, while seven studies continued for more than 10 years, indicating that favourable results for composite materials are frequently based on short-term results, despite higher dropout rates in longer studies. To determine accurately the risk for patients, long-term, randomised, controlled clinical trials of treatment outcomes with composites used in posterior teeth are clearly needed.


Clinical trials Longevity Posterior resin composites Review 



We wish to thank Dr. Wolfgang Ecker, Ministry for Health and Women, for helpful discussion and Prof. Dr. Peter Bauer, Department of Medical Statistics, University of Vienna, for assistance with the statistical evaluation.


  1. 1.
    Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA (1996) 2 year clinical evaluation of Class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 9:150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Wilder AD, Heymann HO, Tangen CM (1991) Clinical longevity of ten posterior composite materials based on wear. J Dent Res 70:340 (abstract)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun AR, Frankenberger R, Krämer N (2001) Clinical performance and margin analysis of Ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year. Clin Oral Invest 5:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busato AL, Loguercio AD, Reis A, de Oliveira Carrilho MR (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results. Am J Dent 14:304–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collins CJ, Bryant RW, Hodge KLV (1998) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. J Dent 26:311–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cvar J, Ryge G (1971) Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. USPHS publ. no. 790–240. U.S. Government Printing Office, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ernst C-P, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Invest 5:148–155Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3:185–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hondrum SA (2000) The longevity of resin-based composite restorations in posterior teeth. Gen Dent 48:398–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hugo B, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Hausmann P, Kleiber B (2001) In-vivo-Untersuchung von kleinen Klasse-II-Kompositfüllungen. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 111:11–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Köhler B, Rasmusson C-G, Ödman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL (2001) One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 26:427–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2002) Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composites resins. Clin Oral Invest 6:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lundin SA, Koch G (1999) Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J 23:165–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mair LH (1998) Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 29:483–490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R (2000) Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 84:289–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mjör IA, Jokstad A (1993) Five-year study of class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement and resin-based composite materials. J Dent 21:338–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nordbø H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR (1998) Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int 29:5–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oberländer H, Hiller K-A, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 5:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perry RD, Kugel G (2000) Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 21:1067–1072, 1074, 1076, 1080PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perry RD, Kugel G, Habib CM, McGarry P, Settembrini L (1997) A two-year clinical evaluation of TPH for restoration of Class II carious lesions in permanent teeth. Gen Dent 45:344–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson NHF (1999) Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report. J Dent 27:13–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NHF (2000) Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest 4:148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ryge G, Snyder M (1973) Evaluation of the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87:369–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryge G, Stanford JW (1977) Recommended format for protocol for clinical research program. Clinical comparison of several anterior and posterior restorative material. Int Dent J 27:46–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scheibenbogen A, Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Kremers L, Benz C, Hickel R (1997) One year clinical evaluation of composite fillings and inlays in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Invest 1:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (1999) Two year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 82:391–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schoch M, Kramer N, Frankenberger R, Petschelt A (1999) Direct posterior composite restorations with a new adhesive system: one-year results. J Adhesive Dent 2:167–173Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Türkün S, Aktener BO (2001) Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 132:196-203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Dijken JWV (2000) Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11-year follow-up. J Dent 28:299–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wassel RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF (2000) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28:375–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wilder AD Jr, May KN Jr, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF (1999) Seventeen year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 11:135–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NHF (2002) A practise-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 27:423–429PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Brunthaler
    • 1
  • F. König
    • 2
  • T. Lucas
    • 3
  • W. Sperr
    • 1
  • A. Schedle
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.School of DentistryUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Medical StatisticsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Universitätsklinik für Zahn-, Mund-, und KieferheilkundeViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations