Abstract
ABSTRACT Composite resin restorations have increased considerably in popularity and predictability, enabling the realization of a minimally invasive dental treatment. However, to obtain the success of composite resin restorations, knowledge of adhesives and the use of the technique are required, otherwise failure may appear quickly. The objective of the present work was to conduct a literature review on the clinical performance of different types of composite resins and adhesive systems with regard to longevity. For this evaluation, some characteristics of the restorations were immediately verified after they were completed and after a determined time. Characteristics such as postoperative sensitivity, color, marginal integrity, secondary caries, texture, marginal adaptation, retention, displacement, marginal discoloration and anatomical shape had their performances compared. The influence of different adhesive systems on the longevity of the restorations was also observed as a function of its fundamental importance in the union between the tooth and the restorative material. It was concluded that most restorations performed clinically acceptable when hybrid, nanoparticle or microhybrid composite resins and conventional adhesive systems were used.
Highlights
Composite resin restorations have increased considerably in popularity and predictability, becoming routine in dental practice[1]. Some reasons for this development was the possibility of a minimally invasive dental treatment, improvement in the development of resins and adhesive restorative techniques and an increase in the number of patients who seek aesthetic restoration to replace the amalgam[2] and in that context, composite resin has been widely used for this type of procedure, reaching a high-level of restorations obtained because of their physical and aesthetic properties
The aim of the present study was to determine whether differences exist in the literature with regard to longevity and maintenance of the characteristics between the different types of composites, taking into account the adhesive systems employed
The Universal system when using conventional or self-etching adhesives presented better results and better clinical performance than the Sotchbond[32]. Another factor that should be considered in evaluating the longevity of composite resin restorations is the presence of secondary caries and marginal leakage caused by bacteria passing through the interface tooth/restoration
Summary
Composite resin restorations have increased considerably in popularity and predictability, becoming routine in dental practice[1]. Some reasons for this development was the possibility of a minimally invasive dental treatment, improvement in the development of resins and adhesive restorative techniques and an increase in the number of patients who seek aesthetic restoration to replace the amalgam[2] and in that context, composite resin has been widely used for this type of procedure, reaching a high-level of restorations obtained because of their physical and aesthetic properties. With the development of hybrid resins with improved wear resistance[1], there has been increased interest in using this type of resin in posterior teeth[5]. The microhybrid, nanohybrid and nano particle composite resins are considered universal in use and are indicated for the restoration of posterior teeth. The aim of the present study was to determine whether differences exist in the literature with regard to longevity and maintenance of the characteristics between the different types of composites, taking into account the adhesive systems employed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
