Abstract
This retrospective study evaluated the clinical performance and the reasons for failure of anterior and posterior composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students over a 3-year period. All cavities were restored using Prime & Bond 2.1 and TPH (Dentsply), according to the manufacturer's indications. One hundred and two patients who had received composite restorations by third and forth year undergraduate students were recalled and examined to analyze the quality of the restorations. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS system. Two hundred and fifty-six composite restorations, 170 in anterior teeth and 86 in posterior teeth, were evaluated. Eighty-five percent of the restorations were considered satisfactory after 3 years. Class II and class IV restorations presented the highest prevalence of failure. Loss of the restoration and deficient marginal adaptation were the main causes of failure. No restoration failed due to secondary caries. Most restorations placed by dental students were considered satisfactory after long-term evaluation. Failure was more prevalent in larger restorations and was not associated with secondary caries.
Highlights
Despite the significant decrease in caries prevalence worldwide, dental caries is still a significant problem and clinicians spend a considerable amount of time placing restorations to substitute the dental structure lost during caries progression [1]
Direct restorations provide a reliable treatment to replace this lost dental structure, with a low cost, less sound dental structure removal and good clinical performance when compared to indirect restorations [2,3,4]
Class II restorations presented the highest prevalence of failure (72%), including restorations classified as unsatisfactory, loss of the restoration and loss of the tooth (Table 3)
Summary
Despite the significant decrease in caries prevalence worldwide, dental caries is still a significant problem and clinicians spend a considerable amount of time placing restorations to substitute the dental structure lost during caries progression [1]. Direct restorations provide a reliable treatment to replace this lost dental structure, with a low cost, less sound dental structure removal and good clinical performance when compared to indirect restorations [2,3,4]. Amalgam used to be considered the best restorative material for posterior teeth. The introduction of adhesive dentistry allowed the preservation of tooth structure usually lost in cavity preparations for amalgam restorations. Composites became reliable materials only in the 1980’s, with the introduction of visible light-curing technology, adhesion to dentin and improvements in filler technology that resulted in higher filler packing. Beforehand, failure due to insufficient wear resistance, loss of anatomic form and interproximal contacts and general degradation was a common event [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
