SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 1 Sayı: 3

The reasons of restoration replacement in patients attended Baflkent University Department of Conservative Dentistry

Başkent Üniversitesi Konservatif Diş Tedavisi kliniğine başvuran hastalarda restorasyon yenileme nedenleri

Serdar Arıkan
Kıvanç Yamanel(Başkent Üniversitesi Dişlhekimliği Fakültesi, Konservatif Diş Tedavisi AD.)
Erdem Karabulut(Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Biyoistatistik AD.)
Neslihan Arhun(Başkent Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği Fakültesi, Konservatif Difl Tedavisi AD.)
Pages
7–14
Publication Date
2007-03-01
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)

Amalgamrestorations were statistically more replaced thancomposite restorations p0.05 . %44.1 restorations were previously madein private practice, %23.3 by institution doctor andthe %32.4 in universities p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study is to evaluate the reasons ofreplacement and the average life time of the restorations clinically and radiologically. 259 amalgamand 191 composite resin restorations were replacedin 450 patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The decisions were made by 3 clinicians radiologically and clinically.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Amalgamrestorations were statistically more replaced thancomposite restorations p0.05 . %44.1 restorations were previously madein private practice, %23.3 by institution doctor andthe %32.4 in universities p
🔬Design:Makale
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:amalgam · kompozit · restorasyon ömrü

Abstract

The aim of the study is to evaluate the reasons ofreplacement and the average life time of the restorations clinically and radiologically. 259 amalgamand 191 composite resin restorations were replacedin 450 patients. The decisions were made by 3 clinicians radiologically and clinically. Age & sex of thepatient, tooth number, cavity type, restoration material amalgam or composite , age of the restoration,where it was accomplished were recorded. The reasons were categorized as fracture, seconder caries,marginal overlap, loss, contact problem, pain/sensitivity and esthetics. %57.5 of the restorations wereamalgam and %42.5 were composite. Amalgamrestorations were statistically more replaced thancomposite restorations p0.05 . %44.1 restorations were previously madein private practice, %23.3 by institution doctor andthe %32.4 in universities p

🔖

Cite This Article

Arıkan, S., Yamanel, K., Karabulut, E., Arhun, N. (2007). The reasons of restoration replacement in patients attended Baflkent University Department of Conservative Dentistry. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 3, 7–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/1440745

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Al Negrish AR. Reasons for placement and replacement of amalgam restorations in Jordan. Int Dent J 2001;51:109- 115.
  2. Kroeze HJP, Plasschaert AJM, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ. Prevalence and need for replacement of amalgam and com- posite restorations in Dutch adults. J Dent Res 1990;69:1270-1274.
  3. Macinnis WA, Ismail A, Brogan H. Placement and replace- ment of restorations in a military population. J Can Dent Assoc 1991;57:227-231.
  4. York AK, Arthur JS. Reasons for placement and replacement of dental restorations in the United States Navy Dental Corps. Oper Dent 1993;18:203-208.
  5. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjör IA. Influence of patient factors on age restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent 2001;29:317-324.
  6. Elderton RJ. The prevalence of failure of restorations: a lite- ratüre review. J Dent 1976;4:207-210.
  7. Mjör IA. Repair versus replacement of failed restorations. Int Dent J. 1993;43:466-472.
  8. Forss H, Widstrom E. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62:82-86.
  9. Drake CW, Maryniuk GA, Bentley C. Reasons for restorati- ons replacement: differences in practise patterns Quint Int 1990;21:125-130
  10. Mjör IA, Medina JE. Reasons for placement, replacement, and age of gold restorations in selected practices. Oper Dent 1993;18:82-87.
  11. Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Age of restorations at rep- lacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 2000;58:97-101.
  12. Deligeorgi V, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care 2001;8:5-11.
  13. Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Failure, repair, refurbishing and lon- gevity of restorations. Oper Dent. 2002;27:528-34.
  14. Mjor IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997 Jan;55(1):58-63.
  15. Yeflilyurt C, Bulucu B, Köprülü H. Restorasyonların baflarısız- lık nedenleri ve hasta memnuniyetsizliği. OMÜ Diflhek Fak Der 2003;4:82-87.
  16. Tobi H. Kreulen CM, Vondeling H, van Amerongen WE. Cost-effectiveness of composite resins and amalgam in the replacement of amalgam Class II restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:137-143.
  17. Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI, Dawson AS. Prediction of amalgam restoration longevity. J Dent 1991;19:18-23.
  18. Wilson NH, Burke FJ, Mjör IA. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations of direct restorative materials by a selected group of practitioners in the United Kingdom. Quint Int 1997;28:245-248.
  19. Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: literature review vith case reports. Quint Int 2000;31:165-179
  20. Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and rep- lacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 2002;27:117-123.
  21. Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of amal- gam restorations in Denmark. Acta Oontol Scand 1990;48:297-303.