Five-Year Clinical Performance of Complex Class II Resin Composite and Amalgam Restorations—A Retrospective Study

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the clinical performance of posterior complex resin composite (RC) and amalgam (AM) restorations after a five-year period. One hundred and nineteen complex Class II restorations placed by dental students were evaluated using the USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Mann–Whitney, and Wilcoxon tests at a 0.05 level of significance. After five years, the percentages of clinically satisfactory complex Class II RC and AM restorations were 78% and 76.8%, respectively. The main reasons for the failure of AM restorations included secondary caries (Bravo—10.1%), defective marginal adaptation (Charlie—8.7%), and fracture of the tooth (Bravo—7.2%). RC restorations presented failures related to the fracture of the restoration (Bravo—16%) and defective marginal adaptation (Charlie—8.2%). There was a significantly higher incidence of secondary caries for AM restorations (AM—10.1%; RC—0%; p = 0.0415) and a higher number of fractures for RC restorations (AM—4.3%; RC—16%; p = 0.05). Regarding anatomy, AM restorations presented a significantly higher number of Alfa scores (49.3%) compared to RC restorations (22.4%) (p = 0.0005). The results of the current study indicate that complex class II RC and AM restorations show a similar five year clinical performance.

[1]  W. El-Badrawy,et al.  Resin Composite Versus Amalgam Restorations Placed in United States Dental Schools. , 2022, Operative dentistry.

[2]  R. G. Chadwick,et al.  Dental amalgam: the history and legacy you perhaps never knew? , 2022, British Dental Journal.

[3]  Ping Li,et al.  Mercury pollution in China: implications on the implementation of the Minamata Convention. , 2022, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[4]  A. Reis,et al.  Sonic application of one-step self-etch adhesive in composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. , 2022, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[5]  B. Noaman,et al.  The Relationship of Caries Risk and Oral Hygiene Level with Placement and Replacement of Dental Restorations. , 2021, Acta Medica Academica.

[6]  W. El-Badrawy,et al.  Composite versus Amalgam Restorations Placed in Canadian Dental Schools. , 2021, Operative dentistry.

[7]  Hyun-Jae Cho,et al.  Effect of interdental cleaning devices on proximal caries. , 2021, Community dentistry and oral epidemiology.

[8]  A. Mitic,et al.  Influence of etching mode and composite resin type on bond strength to dentin using universal adhesive system , 2020, Microscopy research and technique.

[9]  L. Ternent,et al.  Amalgam Phase-Down Part 2: UK-Based Knowledge, Opinions, and Confidence in the Alternatives , 2020, JDR clinical and translational research.

[10]  G. Q. Monteiro,et al.  Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale Criteria: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial , 2020, European Journal of Dentistry.

[11]  A. Qureshi,et al.  Mercury in Dental Amalgam, Online Retail, and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. , 2020, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  J. Perdigão,et al.  Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial. , 2020, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[13]  N. Opdam,et al.  Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. , 2020, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[14]  B. Van Meerbeek,et al.  Degradation of Adhesive-Dentin Interfaces Created Using Different Bonding Strategies after Five-year Simulated Pulpal Pressure. , 2019, Journal of Adhesive Dentistry.

[15]  T. Watson,et al.  Evaluation of the efficacy of calcium silicate vs. glass ionomer cement indirect pulp capping and restoration assessment criteria: a randomised controlled clinical trial—2-year results , 2018, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[16]  R. Moraes,et al.  12 Years of Repair of Amalgam and Composite Resins: A Clinical Study. , 2018, Operative dentistry.

[17]  K. Vehkalahti,et al.  Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-olds attending Public Dental Service-A 13-year observation. , 2017, Journal of dentistry.

[18]  R. Bagheri,et al.  Fracture Toughness of Nanohybrid and Hybrid Composites Stored Wet and Dry up to 60 Days , 2017, Journal of dental biomaterials.

[19]  I. Pesun,et al.  Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  Muhanad Alhareky,et al.  Amalgam vs Composite Restoration, Survival, and Secondary Caries. , 2016, The journal of evidence-based dental practice.

[21]  W. Teughels,et al.  Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem? , 2015, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[22]  U. Pallesen,et al.  A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. , 2015, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[23]  V. Moraschini,et al.  Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2015, Journal of dentistry.

[24]  N. Bhutani,et al.  Comparison of Effect of C-Factor on Bond Strength to Human Dentin Using Different Composite Resin Materials. , 2015, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR.

[25]  A. Moritz,et al.  Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies. , 2015, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[26]  G. Sandborgh-Englund,et al.  Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – A systematic review. , 2015, Journal of dentistry.

[27]  C. Farrugia,et al.  Antimicrobial properties of conventional restorative filling materials and advances in antimicrobial properties of composite resins and glass ionomer cements-A literature review. , 2015, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[28]  Á. Tóth,et al.  Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings. , 2015, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[29]  U. Pallesen,et al.  Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[30]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  Longevity of Posterior Composite Restorations , 2014, Journal of dental research.

[31]  N. Opdam,et al.  Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. , 2014, Journal of dentistry.

[32]  Tim K Mackey,et al.  The Minamata Convention on Mercury: attempting to address the global controversy of dental amalgam use and mercury waste disposal. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[33]  B. Lim,et al.  Longevity of direct restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities: a retrospective study. , 2013, Operative dentistry.

[34]  E. Funkhouser,et al.  A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. , 2013, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[35]  L. Sandvik,et al.  Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. , 2012, European journal of oral sciences.

[36]  B. Horta,et al.  Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. , 2012, Journal of dentistry.

[37]  V. Rousson,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. , 2012, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[38]  N. Opdam,et al.  Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. , 2012, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[39]  R. Ccahuana‐Vasquez,et al.  Shrinkage stress and degree of conversion of a dental composite submitted to different photoactivation protocols. , 2012, Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL.

[40]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[41]  Y. Hayashi,et al.  Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. , 2011, Dental materials journal.

[42]  E. Piva,et al.  Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students. , 2011, Brazilian dental journal.

[43]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  Long-term degradation of enamel and dentin bonds: 6-year results in vitro vs. in vivo. , 2010, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[44]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  12-year Survival of Composite vs. Amalgam Restorations , 2010, Journal of dental research.

[45]  Leiv Sandvik,et al.  Factors influencing dentists’ choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients , 2009, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[46]  Katja Antony,et al.  Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials , 2008, GMS Health Technology Assessment.

[47]  Stephen Bayne,et al.  Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98--FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. , 2007, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[48]  B. Leroux,et al.  Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. , 2007, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[49]  C. Lynch,et al.  Trends in the placement of posterior composites in dental schools. , 2007, Journal of dental education.

[50]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. , 2007, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[51]  G. Schmalz,et al.  Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials , 2005, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[52]  H. Worthington,et al.  Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results. , 2005, Operative dentistry.

[53]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students. , 2004, Journal of dentistry.

[54]  J. Ferracane,et al.  Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management. , 2004, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[55]  W. D’hoore,et al.  Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth , 2003, Journal of dentistry.

[56]  N. Wilson,et al.  Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations. , 2001, Quintessence International.

[57]  A. Peutzfeldt,et al.  Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. , 1997, European journal of oral sciences.

[58]  I A Mjör,et al.  Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. , 1990, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[59]  G. Ryge.  Clinical criteria. , 1980, International dental journal.