Wear patterns in two amalgams and three posterior composites after 5 years' clinical service

Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives

“…The majority of clinical trails on composite restoratives have assessed wear by determining the amount of enamel exposure, either intra‐orally using the USPHS system (Cvar & Ryge, 1971) or by categorizing replica models (Leinfelder et al ., 1986). A high variance in the data was a common feature in the results of all centres (Mair et al ., 1990; Wendt & Leinfelder, 1994; Mair, 1995). Complex statistical analysis has indicated that less than 50% of the variance can be explained by tooth or restoration factors such as tooth types, cavity types or cavity size (Mair, 1990).…”

Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives

“…The majority of clinical trails on composite restoratives have assessed wear by determining the amount of enamel exposure, either intra‐orally using the USPHS system (Cvar & Ryge, 1971) or by categorizing replica models (Leinfelder et al ., 1986). A high variance in the data was a common feature in the results of all centres (Mair et al ., 1990; Wendt & Leinfelder, 1994; Mair, 1995). Complex statistical analysis has indicated that less than 50% of the variance can be explained by tooth or restoration factors such as tooth types, cavity types or cavity size (Mair, 1990).…”

Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long‐term performing composite restorations

“…The first 6 up to 24 months appear as the critical period for the development of deteriorations (Gaengler et al ., 1993; Ostlund, Moller & Koch, 1992). Mair (1995, 1998) evaluated posterior composite restorations over a 10‐year period. His data documented a wear rate decreasing after the first years.…”

Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems

“…The advantages of UEDMA have been reported to be the lower viscosity (approximately 11,000 mPa-s at 23°C; ASMUSSEN, personal communication) and a greater flexibihty of the urethane linkage, which may improve toughness (94). However, a general difference between resin composites based on UEDMA or other urethane dimethacrylates and conventional BisGMA-based resin composites is very difficult to deduce from existing in vitro and in vivo studies (95)(96)(97)(98)(99)(100)(101)(102)(103). One reason for this difBculty is that actual differeBces caused by dissimilar monomer systems are camouflaged by the fact that the materials differ in many other aspects, e.g., type and amount of filler, type and amount of initiators, and quality of silanization of the filler particles, the effect of which may be more determinative for the properties.…”

Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives

“…The majority of clinical trails on composite restoratives have assessed wear by determining the amount of enamel exposure, either intra‐orally using the USPHS system (Cvar & Ryge, 1971) or by categorizing replica models (Leinfelder et al ., 1986). A high variance in the data was a common feature in the results of all centres (Mair et al ., 1990; Wendt & Leinfelder, 1994; Mair, 1995). Complex statistical analysis has indicated that less than 50% of the variance can be explained by tooth or restoration factors such as tooth types, cavity types or cavity size (Mair, 1990).…”

Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long‐term performing composite restorations

“…The first 6 up to 24 months appear as the critical period for the development of deteriorations (Gaengler et al ., 1993; Ostlund, Moller & Koch, 1992). Mair (1995, 1998) evaluated posterior composite restorations over a 10‐year period. His data documented a wear rate decreasing after the first years.…”

Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems

“…The advantages of UEDMA have been reported to be the lower viscosity (approximately 11,000 mPa-s at 23°C; ASMUSSEN, personal communication) and a greater flexibihty of the urethane linkage, which may improve toughness (94). However, a general difference between resin composites based on UEDMA or other urethane dimethacrylates and conventional BisGMA-based resin composites is very difficult to deduce from existing in vitro and in vivo studies (95)(96)(97)(98)(99)(100)(101)(102)(103). One reason for this difBculty is that actual differeBces caused by dissimilar monomer systems are camouflaged by the fact that the materials differ in many other aspects, e.g., type and amount of filler, type and amount of initiators, and quality of silanization of the filler particles, the effect of which may be more determinative for the properties.…”

Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives

“…The majority of clinical trails on composite restoratives have assessed wear by determining the amount of enamel exposure, either intra‐orally using the USPHS system (Cvar & Ryge, 1971) or by categorizing replica models (Leinfelder et al ., 1986). A high variance in the data was a common feature in the results of all centres (Mair et al ., 1990; Wendt & Leinfelder, 1994; Mair, 1995). Complex statistical analysis has indicated that less than 50% of the variance can be explained by tooth or restoration factors such as tooth types, cavity types or cavity size (Mair, 1990).…”

Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long‐term performing composite restorations

“…The first 6 up to 24 months appear as the critical period for the development of deteriorations (Gaengler et al ., 1993; Ostlund, Moller & Koch, 1992). Mair (1995, 1998) evaluated posterior composite restorations over a 10‐year period. His data documented a wear rate decreasing after the first years.…”

Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems

“…The advantages of UEDMA have been reported to be the lower viscosity (approximately 11,000 mPa-s at 23°C; ASMUSSEN, personal communication) and a greater flexibihty of the urethane linkage, which may improve toughness (94). However, a general difference between resin composites based on UEDMA or other urethane dimethacrylates and conventional BisGMA-based resin composites is very difficult to deduce from existing in vitro and in vivo studies (95)(96)(97)(98)(99)(100)(101)(102)(103). One reason for this difBculty is that actual differeBces caused by dissimilar monomer systems are camouflaged by the fact that the materials differ in many other aspects, e.g., type and amount of filler, type and amount of initiators, and quality of silanization of the filler particles, the effect of which may be more determinative for the properties.…”