Journals / Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Where Do We Fail in Posterior Direct Restorations?

Posterior Direkt Restorasyonlarda Nerede Başarısızlık Yaşıyoruz?

Pages
242–249
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

Results: When the effects of factors related to the patient and the restoration on the clinical performance of the restorations were examined, the difference between the type of restoration, the depth of the restoration, the center where it was performed, the patient's smoking, parafunctional and oral hygiene habits significantly affected the restoration performance (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Amalgam and composite resins are the most preferred restorative materials in the posterior side.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of direct posterior restorations performed with different materials in different centers, comparing the restoration and patient factors with a cross-sectional study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: When the effects of factors related to the patient and the restoration on the clinical performance of the restorations were examined, the difference between the type of restoration, the depth of the restoration, the center where it was performed, the patient's smoking, parafunctional and oral hygiene habits significantly affected the restoration performance (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Amalgam and composite resins are the most preferred restorative materials in the posterior side. Thanks to the developments in adhesives and composite materials in recent years, composite resin restorations are frequently used in the treatment of posterior caries. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of direct posterior restorations performed with different materials in different centers, comparing the restoration and patient factors with a cross-sectional study. Material and Methods: In the study, 365 restorations in 77 patients who applied to Dicle University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Restorative Dentistry, were evaluated according to Modified Rgye criteria by two researchers. Chi-square test was used to determine the variables that affect the failure of the criteria and to record the factors belonging to the restoration and the patient. Results: When the effects of factors related to the patient and the restoration on the clinical performance of the restorations were examined, the difference between the type of restoration, the depth of the restoration, the center where it was performed, the patient's smoking, parafunctional and oral hygiene habits significantly affected the restoration performance (p

Özet

Amaç: Amalgam ve kompozit rezinler, posterior bölgede en çok tercih edilen restoratif materyallerdir. Son yıllardaadeziv ve kompozit materyallerdeki gelişmeler sayesinde, posterior bölge çürük tedavisinde sıklıkla kompozit rezinrestorasyonlar kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı merkezlerde, farklı materyallerle (amalgam ve kompozit)yapılan direkt posterior restorasyonların klinik performansını, restorasyona ve hastaya ait faktörler ile kesitsel birçalışmayla karşılaştırarak değerlendirmektir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmada Dicle Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı’nabaşvuran 77 hastada, 365 restorasyon iki tecrübeli araştırıcı tarafından Modifiye Rgye kriterlerine göredeğerlendirilmiştir. Kriterlerin başarısız olma durumuna etkisi olan restorasyona ve hastaya bağlı değişkenleri tespitedebilmek için Ki-kare testi uygulanmıştır.Bulgular: Hastaya ve restorasyona bağlı faktörlerin yapılan restorasyonların klinik performanslarına etkisiincelendiğinde, sonuçlara göre restorasyonun tipi, restorasyon derinliği, yapıldığı merkez, hastanın sigara içmealışkanlığı, parafonksiyonel alışkanlıkları ve oral hijyen alışkanlıklarının farklılığı restorasyon performansını anlamlıdüzeyde etkilemiştir (p

🔖

Cite This Article

BAKIR, Ş., SONKAYA, E., AKBIYIK, S. Y., BAKIR, E. P. (2022). Where Do We Fail in Posterior Direct Restorations?. Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 242–249. https://ajindex.com/articles/494685

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Marcenes W, Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Flaxman A, Naghavi M, Lopez A. Global burden of oral conditions in 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. Journal of Dental Research. 2013; 92(7): 592-7
  2. Affairs, ACOS. Direct and indirect restorative materials. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 2003; 134(4): 463-72
  3. Ömürlü H, Arısu HD, Eligüzeloğlu E, Üçtaşlı MB, Bala O. Gazi üniversitesi diş hekimliği fakültesi diş hastalıkları ve tedavisi anabilim dalına başvuran hastaların direkt restorasyonlarının klinik başarısının değerlendirilmesi. GÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2011; 28(1): 23-8
  4. Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hickel R. Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments. Dent Clin North Am. 2002; 46(2): 303-39
  5. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001; 3(1): 45-64. 6. da Silva Pereira RA, da Silva GR, Barcelos LM, Cavalcanti KGBA, Herval AM, Ardenghi TM, Soares CJ. Practice-based analysis of direct posterior dental restorations performed in a public health service: Retrospective long-term survival in Brazil. PLoS One. 2020; 15(12): e0243288
  6. Flavio Fernando Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, de Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?. Braz. Oral Res. 2017; 31: e56
  7. Kopperud SE, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012; 120(6): 539-48
  8. Kubo S, Kawasakı A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater J. 2011; 30(3): 374-83
  9. 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
  10. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012; 28(1): 87-101
  11. Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR et al. Anterior composite restorations: a systematic review on longterm survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater. 2015; 31(10): 1214-24
  12. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations: A meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012; 14(5): 407-31
  13. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect res