Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice

Abstract

In this study, we recorded the type of restoration and the materials used in 24,429 restorations in permanent teeth by 243 Norwegian clinicians in general practice. Demographic information included patient's gender and age, and clinician's gender, years since graduation, and practice setting (private or salaried). The overall recorded use of restorative materials in permanent teeth shows that 32% are amalgams, just over 40% composites, and about 25% glass ionomer type materials. Three percent are "other" materials. A marked shift away from amalgam restorations is noted both in the clinician's estimated use during the last 2 decades and by comparing the present use of materials with that in failed restorations. Tooth-colored materials are more commonly used in adolescents, especially glass ionomer materials, and in female patients. In patients < or = 18 years, amalgam is used in 25% of all restorations. The use of amalgam is similar in private practice and in public health service practice, but private practitioners use more composites and salaried dentists more glass ionomers. The clinician's gender does not have any effect on the selection of restorative materials. The change from amalgam to tooth-colored material is particularly noticeable for Class I and Class V restorations. Amalgam is the predominant material in 2- and 3-surface Class II restorations.

Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins

“…However, this approach may be regarded as overtreatment since in most cases, a large portion of the restoration is clinically and radiographically intact. Complete removal of a restoration inevitably leads to weakening of the tooth structure, unnecessary grinding of sound dental tissues, and sometimes repeated injuries to the pulp [9, 10]. For this reason, repair of existing restorations through relayering is considered as an alternative for total replacement [6].…”

Association between caries location and restorative material treatment provided

“…Though fewer surveys on restorative material selection have been done in the U.S., the results show the same trend as in other countries but at a slower rate. 3,5,7 …”

“…This is significant in that recurrent caries has been shown by numerous authors to be the primary reason for replacement of both composites and amalgams. 8,9–20 Mjor et al (1999) reported on 642 restorations placed in private practices showing the median age of replacement for amalgam at 15 years versus 8 for composite. 5 This study did not differentiate between anterior and posterior restorations.…”

“…5,21 One study done in Norway reported that amalgam predominated for 2–3 surface class II restorations. 5 A more recent study was conducted by the Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN). The purpose of the study was to determine why initial restorations are being placed, and a portion of the data correlated caries location and restorative material.…”

Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations

“…[3] While many problems related to the clinical handling of composites have been addressed, obtaining ideal contacts in Class II situations still remains problematic. [4]…”