Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Longevity of Direct Resin Composite Restorations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dental Composite Materials for Direct Restorations

Abstract

Dental restorations are subjected to various challenges in the oral environment virtually as soon as the placement is complete. The restorative complex experiences a cascade of events over the first 24 to 48 hours post-restoration until reaching equilibrium. Over time, biofilms of multiple composition and cariogenic abilities accumulate as a cyclic event. Acidic, abrasive as well as mechanical stresses of different extents and magnitudes during mastication exert additional challenges on composite restorations. Thermal, mechanical and chemical aging processes all adversely affect restorations and in certain cases lead to failure. Can we predict or postpone failures? This chapter addresses factors related to the clinical longevity of direct resin composite restorations, including recent data from clinical studies, the meaning of clinical failures, the optimal restorative resin composite, the expected clinical lifespan of restorations and answered/unanswered questions concerning the intraoral performance of direct resin composite restorations. The chapter is concluded addressing strategies to improve the clinical longevity of resin composite restorations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Afrashtehfar KI, et al. Failure of single-unit restorations on root filled posterior teeth: a systematic review. Int Endod J. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Afrashtehfar KI, et al. Failure rate of single-unit restorations on posterior vital teeth: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmed KE, Murbay S. Survival rates of anterior composites in managing tooth wear: systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(2):145–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alcaraz MG, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD005620.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Angeletaki F, et al. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:12–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Astvaldsdottir A, et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – a systematic review. J Dent. 2015;43(8):934–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chabouis HF, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2013;29(12):1209–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Demarco FF, et al. Anterior composite restorations: a systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater. 2015;31(10):1214–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(5):407–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations--a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2015;31(5):481–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Magno MB, et al. Silorane-based composite resin restorations are not better than conventional composites - a meta-analysis of clinical studies. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(5):375–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moraschini V, et al. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1043–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nguyen KV, et al. Clinical performance of laminate and non-laminate resin composite restorations: a systematic review. Aust Dent J. 2015;60(4):520–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Opdam NJ, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. van de Sande FH, et al. Restoration survival: revisiting Patients' risk factors through a systematic literature review. Oper Dent. 2016;41(S7):S7–S26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Veiga AM, et al. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;54:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burke FJ. Tooth fracture in vivo and in vitro. J Dent. 1992;20(3):131–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Demarco FF, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shahrbaf S, et al. The effect of marginal ridge thickness on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated, composite restored maxillary premolars. Oper Dent. 2007;32(3):285–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Loomans BA, et al. The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent. 2008;36(10):828–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, et al. 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011;27(10):955–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Opdam NJ, et al. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9(5):469–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, et al. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent. 2003;31(6):395–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Laske M, et al. Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice based research network. J Dent. 2016;46:12–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van de Sande FH, et al. Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res. 2013;92(7 Suppl):78S–83S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Coelho-de-Souza FH, et al. Direct anterior composite veneers in vital and non-vital teeth: a retrospective clinical evaluation. J Dent. 2015;43(11):1330–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Casagrande L, et al. Longevity and associated risk factors in adhesive restorations of young permanent teeth after complete and selective caries removal: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;21(3):847–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Maltz M, et al. Randomized trial of partial vs. stepwise caries removal: 3-year follow-up. J Dent Res. 2012;91(11):1026–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Söderholm KJ. Fracture of dental materials. In: Belov A, editor. Applied fracture mechanics: InTech; 2012. p. 109–42.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tyas MJ, et al. Minimal intervention dentistry—a review. FDI Commission project 1-97. Int Dent J. 2000;50(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Opdam N, Frankenberger R, Magne P. From 'Direct versus Indirect' toward an integrated restorative concept in the posterior dentition. Oper Dent. 2016;41(S7):S27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaizer MR, et al. Do nanofill or submicron composites show improved smoothness and gloss? A systematic review of in vitro studies. Dent Mater. 2014;30(4):e41–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pallesen U, van Dijken JW. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in class II restorations. J Dent. 2015;43(12):1547–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. van de Sande FH, et al. 18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base. Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):669–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Meerbeek B, et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e100–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schwendicke F, et al. Directly placed restorative materials: review and network meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(6):613–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Perdigao J, et al. One-year clinical performance of self-etch adhesives in posterior restorations. Am J Dent. 2007;20(2):125–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S, Hodges JS. Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: effect on postoperative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(12):1621–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Reis A, et al. Does the adhesive strategy influence the post-operative sensitivity in adult patients with posterior resin composite restorations? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2015;31(9):1052–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS, Holder RL. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (part 2): variation by patients' characteristics. J Dent. 2005;33(10):817–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hamburger JT, et al. Clinical performance of direct composite restorations for treatment of severe tooth wear. J Adhes Dent. 2011;13(6):585–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Opdam NJ, et al. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010;89(10):1063–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, et al. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in public dental health clinics in northern Sweden. J Dent. 2009;37(9):673–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Peres MA, et al. Sugar consumption and changes in dental caries from childhood to adolescence. J Dent Res. 2016;95(4):388–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cenci MS, et al. Relationship between gap size and dentine secondary caries formation assessed in a microcosm biofilm model. Caries Res. 2009;43(2):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kuper NK, et al. Gap size and wall lesion development next to composite. J Dent Res. 2014;93(7 Suppl):108S–13S.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kuper NK, et al. The influence of approximal restoration extension on the development of secondary caries. J Dent. 2012;40(3):241–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Demarco FF, et al. Anterior composite restorations in clinical practice: findings from a survey with general dental practitioners. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21(6):497–504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Nascimento GG, et al. Do clinical experience time and postgraduate training influence the choice of materials for posterior restorations? Results of a survey with Brazilian general dentists. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(6):642–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kakudate N, et al. Restorative treatment thresholds for proximal caries in dental PBRN. J Dent Res. 2012;91(12):1202–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lucarotti PS, Holder RL, Burke FJ. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (part 3): variation by dentist factors. J Dent. 2005;33(10):827–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bogacki RE, et al. Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent. 2002;27(5):488–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gordan VV, et al. The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN. J Dent. 2014;42(12):1528–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Baldissera RA, et al. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth? J Dent. 2013;41(11):1027–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Thomson WM. Dental caries experience in older people over time: what can the large cohort studies tell us? Br Dent J. 2004;196(2):89–92. discussion 87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Opdam NJ, et al. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007;23(1):2–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Soncini JA, et al. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children's amalgam trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(6):763–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Skupien JA, et al. Survival of restored Endodontically treated teeth in relation to periodontal status. Braz Dent J. 2016;27(1):37–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Demarco FF, et al. Multilevel analysis of the association between posterior restorations and gingival health in young adults: a population-based birth cohort0. J Clin Periodontol. 2013;40(12):1126–31.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Correa MB, et al. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent. 2012;40(9):703–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Correa MB, et al. Do socioeconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach. J Dent. 2013;41(11):960–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Alvanforoush N, et al. A comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995–2005 and 2006–2016 periods. Aust Dent J. 2016;62(2):132–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Popowics TE, Rensberger JM, Herring SW. The fracture behaviour of human and pig molar cusps. Arch Oral Biol. 2001;46(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Chai H, et al. Remarkable resilience of teeth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(18):7289–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Marcenes W, et al. Global burden of oral conditions in 1990–2010: a systematic analysis. J Dent Res. 2013;92(7):592–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Mjor IA. The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries. Quintessence Int. 1998;29(5):313–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3(2):185–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Cenci MS, et al. Effect of microleakage and fluoride on enamel-dentine demineralization around restorations. Caries Res. 2008;42(5):369–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Mjor IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(10):1426–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Ferracane JL. Buonocore lecture. Placing dental composites—a stressful experience. Oper Dent. 2008;33(3):247–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sailer I, et al. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):603–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Hultin M, Komiyama A, Klinge B. Supportive therapy and the longevity of dental implants: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(Suppl 3):50–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Tan K, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):654–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Torabinejad M, et al. Outcomes of root canal treatment and restoration, implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial dentures, and extraction without replacement: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98(4):285–311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Corbett KL, et al. Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2010;5(10):e13520.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Haddad SL, et al. Intermediate and long-term outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. A systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(9):1899–905.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations. Am J Dent. 2005;18(2):75–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7(2):71–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(6):418–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil

    Rafael R. Moraes & Maximiliano S. Cenci

  2. Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brazil

    Luis Felipe J. Schneider

  3. Veiga de Almeida University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Luis Felipe J. Schneider

Authors
  1. Rafael R. Moraes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maximiliano S. Cenci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luis Felipe J. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael R. Moraes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DentalNet Research Group, University of Belgrade, School of Dental Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia

    Vesna Miletic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moraes, R.R., Cenci, M.S., Schneider, L.F.J. (2018). Clinical Longevity of Direct Resin Composite Restorations. In: Miletic, V. (eds) Dental Composite Materials for Direct Restorations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60961-4_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60961-4_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60960-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60961-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation