Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students

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.

Two-year Clinical Performance of Self-etching Adhesive Systems in Composite Restorations of Anterior Teeth

“…It is possible that the Single Bond 2 restorations failed because large resin composite restorations have a higher failure rate. 28 Additionally, Moura and others 29 observed that Class IV restorations had a high prevalence of failures in a three-year clinical performance of composites. With regards to bonding performance and longevity, in vitro investigations found that 1-SEAs presented similar tensile bond strengths to dentin when compared with two-step self-etching systems 19 or total-etch systems.…”

“…A bevel was made at the labial cavosurface angle of the anterior teeth using a diamond bur. 25 The cavities were cleaned with pumice and water in a rubber cup, rinsed, and dried.…”

O uso do ensaio restaurador para resultados previsíveis em restaurações classe III de resina composta: relato de caso

“…A resina composta é o material de eleição, quando nos deparamos com lesões cariosas ou fraturas em dentes anteriores, visto que suas propriedades estéticas são as que melhor reproduzem a cor de um dente natural 4,5 . Mesmo assim, existe uma gama de cores entre as resinas compostas, que exige do profissional mais atenção e conhecimento.…”

“…Todos esses pontos podem influenciar o resultado final da restauração 3 . A resina composta é, hoje, o material de eleição para restaurações em dentes anteriores, assim como posteriores 5,6 . Apesar disso, há poucos estudos que apontam os principais motivos de falha nas restaurações para dentes anteriores.…”

Assessment Of The Factors Affecting The Clinical Performance Of Direct Posterior Restorations

“…Direkt restorasyonlar daha ekonomik olmaları, tek seansta bitirilebilmeleri, daha az doku kaybı gerektirmeleri ve başarılı uzun dönem klinik performansları nedeniyle indirekt restorasyonlara göre daha çok tercih edilir. 1 Posterior bölgede en çok tercih edilen direkt restorasyonlar amalgam ve kompozitlerdir. Estetik olmaması, sağlıklı dokularda madde kaybına yol açması ve civa içermesi nedeniyle amalgam restorasyonların kullanımları giderek azalmasına rağmen 1 , günümüzde halen bu materyal maliyetinin düşük olması ve teknik hassasiyetinin az olması nedeniyle ülkemizde yaygın olarak uygulanmaktadır.…”