Elsevier

Dental Materials

Volume 28, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 87-101
Dental Materials

Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Resin composites have become the first choice for direct posterior restorations and are increasingly popular among clinicians and patients. Meanwhile, a number of clinical reports in the literature have discussed the durability of these restorations over long periods. In this review, we have searched the dental literature looking for clinical trials investigating posterior composite restorations over periods of at least 5 years of follow-up published between 1996 and 2011. The search resulted in 34 selected studies. 90% of the clinical studies indicated that annual failure rates between 1% and 3% can be achieved with Class I and II posterior composite restorations depending on several factors such as tooth type and location, operator, and socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral elements. The material properties showed a minor effect on longevity. The main reasons for failure in the long term are secondary caries, related to the individual caries risk, and fracture, related to the presence of a lining or the strength of the material used as well as patient factors such as bruxism. Repair is a viable alternative to replacement, and it can increase significantly the lifetime of restorations. As observed in the literature reviewed, a long survival rate for posterior composite restorations can be expected provided that patient, operator and materials factors are taken into account when the restorations are performed.

Introduction

Direct restorations have been largely employed to restore posterior teeth due to their low cost and less need for the removal of sound tooth substance when compared to indirect restorations, as well as to their acceptable clinical performance [1], [2], [3], [4]. Despite the fact that both amalgam and composite resin are considered suitable materials for restoring Class I and Class II cavities, some advantages can be related to composite restorations such as better esthetics; their adhesive properties, resulting in reduced preparation size [5]; and reinforcement of the remaining dental structure [6]. A clinical study has shown that painful vital teeth with incomplete fractures can be treated successfully by replacing the amalgam fillings with bonded composite restorations [7]. On the other hand, posterior composite restorations have been shown to produce higher failure rates due to secondary caries [8], [9]. However, although used in many practices around the world, amalgam is facing its demise, leaving resin composite as the most likely material for posterior restorations for widespread use in the near future.

Even though acceptable survival rates are achieved with Class I and II restorations in dental health care, the replacement of failing restorations is still a relevant issue. Dentists still spend a significant amount of time replacing restorations, contributing to the repetitive restorative cycle described by Elderton [10]. Factors related to the patient, operator, tooth, cavity size, and materials have been reported in the literature as potentially relevant for restoration failures [2], [3], [8], [11], [12], [13], although evidence of this is still limited.

Despite the considerable differences in properties among commercial composites as found in laboratory analysis [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], in vitro tests are limited in predicting the clinical survival of composite restorations. Due to the constant influx of new posterior restorative materials on the market and the need for manufacturers to prove the clinical safety of their new materials, there has been an emphasis on relatively short-term clinical studies with a limited number of restorations, mostly placed in low-risk patients. In those studies, differences in performance are seldom found, as most materials perform well on a short-term basis, with a few exceptions [21], [22].

To estimate how long posterior composite restorations last, long-term studies are needed to identify modes of failure and possible reasons for these failures. In a comparative amalgam–composite study after 5 years, no differences in performance were found; after 12 years, however, the composite showed significantly better performance [12]. Given the considerable differences between (non-bonded) amalgam and composite and the fact that, after 5 years, no differences in performance were observed, it is not likely that the majority of composite restorations will show different longevity when investigated before at least 5 years of clinical service. Because of limited observation times of most clinical studies [4], limited information is available on the performance determinants and reasons for the failure of posterior composite restorations in the long term. Although the rapid evolution of composites makes it difficult for long-term evaluations to be conducted using materials still available in the market, the good results shown with previous and presently available materials in clinical studies [3], [4], [12] foster the question of whether new materials are actually improvements, and the authors tend to conclude that this is not likely. This means that, based on the available long-term studies, especially studies with observation times exceeding 5 years, an expectation regarding the long-term behavior of posterior composite restorations can be made. In the present article, we aim to review and discuss, with an emphasis on the available long-term literature, the longevity of posterior composite restorations, and the main factors associated with restoration failures.

Section snippets

Selection of papers

To investigate the longevity of composite restorations as reported in clinical studies in the dental literature, a PubMed search for articles that evaluated longitudinal data for posterior resin composite restorations published between 1996 and 2011 was performed. The terms used in the search were ‘posterior composite restorations’ and ‘survival’ or ‘longevity’ or ‘failure’. After selecting only papers reporting clinical longevity studies of composite restorations with evaluation periods of at

Clinical

Clinical related factors play an important role in restoration longevity and causes of failure. Several studies have indicated that the position of the tooth in the mouth or the tooth type directly affects restoration longevity, with restorations in premolars showing better performance than those in molars [2], [3], [24], [25], [26]. One paper reported a risk of restoration failure twice as high for molars compared to premolars [24]. One study with a 22-year observation time found the risk of

Main reasons for failure

Table 2 shows the main causes of failure reported by the studies included in this review (Table 1). The two main causes of failure identified were fracture (restoration or tooth) and secondary caries. In a previous review, it was shown that early failures were more closely related to fractures, while studies with long periods of observation showed a trend to find more caries-related failures [1]. However, according to the present review, the same conclusion cannot be drawn since most long-term

Repair as an alternative to replacement

Failed restorations or restorations presenting small defects are routinely treated by replacement by most clinicians. Because of this, for many years, the replacement of defective restorations has been reported as the most common treatment in general dental practice, and it represents a major part of oral health care in adults [100]. When a restoration is replaced, a significant amount of sound tooth structure is removed and the preparation is enlarged [100], [101]. Moreover, the general cost

Overall considerations

Due to their esthetic properties and good clinical service, composites have become the preferred material for direct posterior restorations. When ‘gold standard’ hybrid composites are used, an AFR between 1% and 3% can be expected depending mainly upon factors other than material properties. The main reasons for the failure of posterior composite restorations are secondary caries and fracture. The failure of restorations related to the wear of these materials in the posterior region seems,

References (113)

  • P.S. Lucarotti et al.

    Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 3): variation by dentist factors

    J Dent

    (2005)
  • P.S. Lucarotti et al.

    Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): variation by type of restoration and re-intervention

    J Dent

    (2005)
  • E.J. Mertz-Fairhurst et al.

    Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10

    J Am Dent Assoc

    (1998)
  • B.A. Loomans et al.

    A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites

    J Dent

    (2006)
  • F.J. Burke et al.

    Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 4): influence of time and place

    J Dent

    (2005)
  • N.J. Opdam et al.

    Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students

    J Dent

    (2004)
  • A. Raskin et al.

    Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report

    J Dent

    (1999)
  • B.A. Loomans et al.

    The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness

    J Dent

    (2007)
  • N.J. Opdam et al.

    Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo

    J Dent

    (1998)
  • B. Kohler et al.

    A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations

    J Dent

    (2000)
  • J.W. van Dijken et al.

    Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in Class II cavities

    J Dent

    (2006)
  • V.V. Gordan et al.

    A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years

    J Am Dent Assoc

    (2007)
  • K. Sunnegardh-Gronberg et al.

    Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden

    J Dent

    (2009)
  • J. Perdigao et al.

    Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: effect on postoperative sensitivity

    J Am Dent Assoc

    (2003)
  • F.F. Demarco et al.

    Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings

    J Dent

    (2007)
  • F.J. Burke et al.

    Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices

    Dent Mater

    (2011)
  • C.J. Collins et al.

    A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings

    J Dent

    (1998)
  • S. Palaniappan et al.

    Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite

    Dent Mater

    (2009)
  • S. Palaniappan et al.

    Nanofilled and microhybrid composite restorations: five-year clinical wear performances

    Dent Mater

    (2011)
  • K.H. Kim et al.

    Fracture toughness and acoustic emission behavior of dental composite resins

    Eng Fract Mech

    (1991)
  • J.L. Ferracane

    Is the wear of dental composites still a clinical concern? Is there still a need for in vitro wear simulating devices?

    Dent Mater

    (2006)
  • J.L. Ferracane

    Resin composite—state of the art

    Dent Mater

    (2011)
  • I.A. Mjor

    Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries

    J Am Dent Assoc

    (2005)
  • R.R. Moraes et al.

    Control of polymerization shrinkage and stress in nanogel-modified monomer and composite materials

    Dent Mater

    (2011)
  • M. Peumans et al.

    Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials

    Dent Mater

    (2005)
  • S.L. Turkun

    Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years

    J Dent

    (2003)
  • G. Moncada et al.

    Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial

    J Am Dent Assoc

    (2009)
  • A. Brunthaler et al.

    Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth

    Clin Oral Investig

    (2003)
  • J. Manhart et al.

    Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition

    Oper Dent

    (2004)
  • F.H. Coelho-De-Souza et al.

    Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage

    Oper Dent

    (2008)
  • R.J. Elderton

    Restorations without conventional cavity preparations

    Int Dent J

    (1988)
  • F.J. Burke et al.

    How long do direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales survive?

    Br Dent J

    (2009)
  • N.J. Opdam et al.

    12-Year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations

    J Dent Res

    (2010)
  • S.M. Chung et al.

    Elastic modulus of resin-based dental restorative materials: a microindentation approach

    J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater

    (2005)
  • R.R. de Moraes et al.

    Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins?

    Oper Dent

    (2009)
  • M. Ersoy et al.

    Physical properties of different composites

    Dent Mater J

    (2004)
  • N. Ilie et al.

    Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites

    Clin Oral Investig

    (2009)
  • S.A. Rodrigues Junior et al.

    Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different types of resin-based composites

    Braz Oral Res

    (2007)
  • A.C. Shortall et al.

    Fracture resistance of anterior, posterior and universal light activated composite restoratives

    Oper Dent

    (2001)
  • C.P. Turssi et al.

    Comparative study of the wear behavior of composites for posterior restorations

    J Mater Sci Mater Med

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text