SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal Of International Dental And Medical Research / 2013 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1

The Evaluation of Reasons for Replacement of Amalgam and Composite

Emrullah BAHSI
Bayram INCE
Mehmet DALLI
Cafer SAHBAZ
Hakan ÇOLAK
İzzet ACIKAN
Necat ASLAN
Zeki AKKUS
Pages
15–19
Publication Date
2013-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Clinical article(J Int Dent Med Res 2013; 6: (1), pp. 15-19)

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Amalgam and composite restorations take prime place in restorative dental practices.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study comprised 705 patients (402 female, 303 male) who presented at the dental clinic for routine dental treatment.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Clinical article(J Int Dent Med Res 2013; 6: (1), pp. 15-19)
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Replacement · Amalgam · Composite.

Abstract

Amalgam and composite restorations take prime place in restorative dental practices. Over time, restorations are replaced for various reasons. This study aimed to evaluate the reasons for restoration replacement of patients presenting at Dicle University, Dental Faculty, Restorative Dentistry Clinic. The study comprised 705 patients (402 female, 303 male) who presented at the dental clinic for routine dental treatment. Without taking gender into consideration, patients aged 15-80 who were determined to have amalgam and composite filling problems were included in the study. The patients were allocated to 5 groups according to age: Group 1, 16-25 years, Group 2, 26-35 years, Group 3, 36-45 years, Group 4, 46-55 years, Group 5, 56 years and over. The failure of the fillings was diagnosed from clinical and radiological evaluation results. The age, gender and reason for the replacement of the restoration were recorded for all patients. The obtained data was evaluated with Student’s t test and a difference was determined between the age groups. Of 705 restorations, 378 (53.62%) were amalgam and 327 were composite (46.38%). When the reasons for replacement of restorations were examined the primary reason was secondary caries (30.78%), followed by fracture of the restoration (17.6%) and overflowing filling (15.46%). A significant difference was found between the age groups in terms of the parameter of reason for restoration replacement (p<0.05). To determine between which age groups this difference was more significant, the Tukey HSD test was applied as a multiple comparison test. The most significant reason for replacement of amalgams and composites was found to be secondary caries. The factor of gender had no effect on the reasons for replacement of the restoration. Failure of the restoration was seen to be greater in the 16-25 age group. Clinical article(J Int Dent Med Res 2013; 6: (1), pp. 15-19)

🔖

Cite This Article

BAHSI, E., INCE, B., DALLI, M., SAHBAZ, C., ÇOLAK, H., ACIKAN, İ., ASLAN, N., AKKUS, Z. (2013). The Evaluation of Reasons for Replacement of Amalgam and Composite. Journal Of International Dental And Medical Research, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 15–19. https://ajindex.com/articles/1001366

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Deligeorgi V, Wilson N H, Fouzas D, Kouklaki E, Burke F J, Mjor I A. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations in student clinics in Manchester and Athens. Eur J Dent Educ 2000;4(4):153-159.
  2. Braga S R, Vasconcelos B T, Macedo M R, Martins V R, Sobral M A. Reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorative materials in Brazil. Quintessence Int 2007;38(4):e189-194. Mjor I A, Toffenetti F. Placement and replacement of resinbased composite restorations in Italy. Oper Dent 1992;17(3):82 Friedl K H, Hiller K A, Schmalz G. Placement and replacement of composite restorations in Germany. Oper Dent 1995;20(1):34-38. Chrysanthakopoulos N A. Placement, replacement and longevity of composite resin-based restorations in permanent teeth in Greece. Int Dent J 2012;62(3):161-166. Chrysanthakopoulos N A. Reasons for Placement and Replacement of Resin-based Composite Restorations in Greece. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2011;5(3):87-93.
  3. Forss H, Widstrom E. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62(2):82-86. Al-Negrish A R. Composite resin restorations: a cross-sectional survey of placement and replacement in Jordan. Int Dent J 2002;52(6):461-468.
  4. Gilmour A S, Evans P, Addy L D. Attitudes of general dental practitioners in the UK to the use of composite materials in posterior teeth. Br Dent J 2007;202(12):E32. Mjor I A. The basis for everyday real-life operative dentistry. Oper Dent 2001;26(5):521-524.
  5. Mjor I A, Qvist V. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25(1):25-30.
  6. Wilson N H, Mjor I A. The teaching of Class I and Class II direct composite restorations in European dental schools. J Dent 2000;28(1):15-21.
  7. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas S, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent 2001;Supplement(6):119-144.
  8. Van Meerbeek B, DE Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28(3):215-235.
  9. Friedl K H, Hiller K A, Schmalz G. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations in Germany. Oper Dent 1994;19(6):228-232. Mair L H. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 1998;29(8):483-490.
  10. Opdam N J, Bronkhorst E M, Roeters J M, Loomans B A. A retrospective clinical study on long