Cargando…

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

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 restor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bohaty, Brenda S, Ye, Qiang, Misra, Anil, Sene, Fabio, Spencer, Paulette
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23750102
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S42044
_version_ 1782271389717233664
author Bohaty, Brenda S
Ye, Qiang
Misra, Anil
Sene, Fabio
Spencer, Paulette
author_facet Bohaty, Brenda S
Ye, Qiang
Misra, Anil
Sene, Fabio
Spencer, Paulette
author_sort Bohaty, Brenda S
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3666491
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36664912013-06-07 Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function Bohaty, Brenda S Ye, Qiang Misra, Anil Sene, Fabio Spencer, Paulette Clin Cosmet Investig Dent Review 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. Dove Medical Press 2013-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3666491/ /pubmed/23750102 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S42044 Text en © 2013 Bohaty et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Bohaty, Brenda S
Ye, Qiang
Misra, Anil
Sene, Fabio
Spencer, Paulette
Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function
title Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function
title_full Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function
title_fullStr Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function
title_full_unstemmed Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function
title_short Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function
title_sort posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23750102
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S42044
work_keys_str_mv AT bohatybrendas posteriorcompositerestorationupdatefocusonfactorsinfluencingformandfunction
AT yeqiang posteriorcompositerestorationupdatefocusonfactorsinfluencingformandfunction
AT misraanil posteriorcompositerestorationupdatefocusonfactorsinfluencingformandfunction
AT senefabio posteriorcompositerestorationupdatefocusonfactorsinfluencingformandfunction
AT spencerpaulette posteriorcompositerestorationupdatefocusonfactorsinfluencingformandfunction