Overcoming the challenges of Class II resin-based composites

Abstract

entists’ attitudes about the relative acceptability of the various materials used for Class II restorations have changed significantly during the past 20 years. Many dentists used to be skeptical about the potential longevity of resin-based composites (RBCs) when used in Class II locations, and amalgam was the dominant material used for posterior tooth restorations. A 2005 survey showed that although amalgam use still is relatively high in the United States, many dentists have eliminated it. Scientific evidence still appears to support the continued use of amalgam; however, in my many travels around the world, I have found some countries, such as Japan, where amalgam does not appear to be used by any practitioner. It is obvious to me that amalgam use will decrease inevitably and that RBC will be used as the primary restorative material for Class II restorations. Unfortunately, successful placement of RBC restorations still poses several challenges that make some dentists hesitate to use the material as a routine restorative for Class II situations. Can these challenges be overcome, or are there inherent problems that make RBC restorations a continuing problem? In this article, I will discuss the challenges observed when using RBC in Class II locations and suggest potential solutions for each of them.