Date post: | 29-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | reilly-hatfield |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 3 times |
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS - Long term controlled clinical studies
Study study design obervation period results (YFR)
Mair, 1998 longitudinal 10Y 0.7%
Mertz-Fairhurst et al, 1991 longitudinal 10Y 2.0%
Raskin et al, 1999 longitudinal 10Y 4-5%
Wilder et al, 1999 longitudinal 17Y 1.4%
Gaengler et al, 2001 longitudinal 10Y 2.5%
Palessen & Qvist, 2003 longitudinal 11Y 0.7%
da Rosa Rodolpho et al , 2006 longitudinal 17Y 2.04%
Study study design obervation period results (YFR)
Mair, 1998 longitudinal 10Y 0.7%
Mertz-Fairhurst et al, 1991 longitudinal 10Y 2.0%
Raskin et al, 1999 longitudinal 10Y 4-5%
Wilder et al, 1999 longitudinal 17Y 1.4%
Gaengler et al, 2001 longitudinal 10Y 2.5%
Palessen & Qvist, 2003 longitudinal 11Y 0.7%
da Rosa Rodolpho et al , 2006 longitudinal 17Y 2.04%
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Class II Sandwich GIC/ Resin Composite - In vivo STUDIES
Study n. of restorations observ. period results
Gaengler et al, 2001 194 GIC/RC Class II 10 Years 74.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures++
da Rosa Rodolpho et al, 2006 282 GIC/RC Class II 17 Years 65.2% survivalUSPHS failures = fractures ++
Study n. of restorations observ. period results
Gaengler et al, 2001 194 GIC/RC Class II 10 Years 74.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures++
da Rosa Rodolpho et al, 2006 282 GIC/RC Class II 17 Years 65.2% survivalUSPHS failures = fractures ++
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Class II Sandwich with rmGIC - In vitro STUDIES
Study exp. protocol level of evidence results
Kosmas Tolidis et al, 1998 volum. shrinkage rmGIC liner reduces shrinkage
Wibowo & Stockton, 2001 microleakage rmGIC liner < FRC liner
Dietrich et al, 1999 marg. adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > GIC or full Cp
(3M, ESPE,Vivadent,GC, Dentpsly)
Dietrich et al, 2000 marg. Adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > Full CP(Z100/Vitremer)
Study exp. protocol level of evidence results
Kosmas Tolidis et al, 1998 volum. shrinkage rmGIC liner reduces shrinkage
Wibowo & Stockton, 2001 microleakage rmGIC liner < FRC liner
Dietrich et al, 1999 marg. adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > GIC or full Cp
(3M, ESPE,Vivadent,GC, Dentpsly)
Dietrich et al, 2000 marg. Adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > Full CP(Z100/Vitremer)
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Class II Sandwich with rmGIC - In vitro STUDIES
Study exp. protocol level of evidence results
Dietschi et al, 2002 marg. adaptation (SEM) Compomer > Full Cp
(Dyract) Closed sandwich Config. !!!
Study exp. protocol level of evidence results
Dietschi et al, 2002 marg. adaptation (SEM) Compomer > Full Cp
(Dyract) Closed sandwich Config. !!!
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Sandwich with rmGIC - In vivo STUDIES
Study n. of restorations observ. period results
Lindberg et al, 2000 n= 2o class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E &D SEM marg. adapt. for PMRC / RC
Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2002 n= 40 class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E&D
SEM marg. adapt. rmGIC / RC
Opdam et al, 2007 n= 458 class II 9 Years higher failure rate USPHS with rmGIC
Study n. of restorations observ. period results
Lindberg et al, 2000 n= 2o class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E &D SEM marg. adapt. for PMRC / RC
Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2002 n= 40 class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E&D
SEM marg. adapt. rmGIC / RC
Opdam et al, 2007 n= 458 class II 9 Years higher failure rate USPHS with rmGIC
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Sandwich Class II Vitremer/Z100 - In vivo STUDIES
Study n. of restorations observ. period results
Van Dijken et al, 1999 274 open sandwich 3 Years 2.5% tooth fractures class II & 6 exp. cond. 4% dissolution rmGIC
Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2004 220 open sandwich 6-7 Years 19%/34% failures class II & 6 exp. cond. dissolution rmGIC ++ failure = tooth & rest.
fractures <1% AFR @ 3Y3.16% AFR @ 6Y4.85% AFR @7Y
Study n. of restorations observ. period results
Van Dijken et al, 1999 274 open sandwich 3 Years 2.5% tooth fractures class II & 6 exp. cond. 4% dissolution rmGIC
Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2004 220 open sandwich 6-7 Years 19%/34% failures class II & 6 exp. cond. dissolution rmGIC ++ failure = tooth & rest.
fractures <1% AFR @ 3Y3.16% AFR @ 6Y4.85% AFR @7Y
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Class II “Sandwich” with FRC - In vitro STUDIES
Study exp. protocol level of evidence results
Chuang et al, 2004 marg. adaptation (SEM) thin FRC >
Dewaele et al, 2006 marg. adaptation (LM) gaps if: (12 exp. rubbery liners) flow, flexibility,
shrinkage
Study exp. protocol level of evidence results
Chuang et al, 2004 marg. adaptation (SEM) thin FRC >
Dewaele et al, 2006 marg. adaptation (LM) gaps if: (12 exp. rubbery liners) flow, flexibility,
shrinkage
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w “Class II “Sandwich” with FRC - In vivo STUDIES
Study Comparison observ. period results
Ernst et al, 2003 Class II with / without flow 2Y no difference
Lindberg et al, 2005 Class II with / without flow § 1m no difference
Efes et al, 2006 Class II with / without flow 2Y no difference
Study Comparison observ. period results
Ernst et al, 2003 Class II with / without flow 2Y no difference
Lindberg et al, 2005 Class II with / without flow § 1m no difference
Efes et al, 2006 Class II with / without flow 2Y no difference
CHOICE between Direct & Indirect Restorations:Literature Review
Direct vs Indirect Restorations
in Medium Size Cavities
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Medium Size Cavities
Study results
van Dijken JW, 2000 The difference in failure rate between the resin composite direct technique and the inlay technique was not large,
indicating that the more time-consuming and expensive inlay technique
may not be justified
Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF, 2000 In this study the direct inlay technique gave no clinical
advantage over conventional direct restorations
Pallesen U, Qvist V, 2003 No significant difference between compositefillings and composite inlays
Study results
van Dijken JW, 2000 The difference in failure rate between the resin composite direct technique and the inlay technique was not large,
indicating that the more time-consuming and expensive inlay technique
may not be justified
Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF, 2000 In this study the direct inlay technique gave no clinical
advantage over conventional direct restorations
Pallesen U, Qvist V, 2003 No significant difference between compositefillings and composite inlays
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Medium Size Cavities
Study results
Spreafico RC, Dietschi D, Krejci I, 2005 The clinical performance and the marginal adaptation did not
show significative differences
Study results
Spreafico RC, Dietschi D, Krejci I, 2005 The clinical performance and the marginal adaptation did not
show significative differences
CHOICE between Direct & Indirect Restorations:
Literature ReviewDirect vs Indirect Restorations
in Large Cavities
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Large Size Cavities
Study results
Klaiber and Haller, 1989 Luted restorations permit a better marginal adaptation and seal when compared to the direct composite resin restorations
Milleding, 1992
Agosto,1993
Lida et al, 2003 To prevent marginal microfracture, an adhesive inlay restoration is preferable for a large class II cavity
van Dijken JW. 2000 The direct inlay / onlay technique is recommended to be used in class II cavities of high caries risk patients with cervical
margins placed in dentin
Study results
Klaiber and Haller, 1989 Luted restorations permit a better marginal adaptation and seal when compared to the direct composite resin restorations
Milleding, 1992
Agosto,1993
Lida et al, 2003 To prevent marginal microfracture, an adhesive inlay restoration is preferable for a large class II cavity
van Dijken JW. 2000 The direct inlay / onlay technique is recommended to be used in class II cavities of high caries risk patients with cervical
margins placed in dentin
Clinical trials: Direct Resin CompositesMaterial Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
BRILLANT 1y 24 100% 0% Fülleman et al. 1992
BRILLANT 2Y 30 80% 10% Haas et al. 1992
BRILLANT-ESTILUX 1Y 29 96.5% 3.4% Thordrup et al. 1994
BRILLANT 3y 71 92% 2.7% Wassel et al. 1996
BRILLANT-APH 5Y 24 100% 0% Wiedmer et al. 1997
Clinical trials: Direct Resin CompositesMaterial Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
BRILLANT 5Y 21 100% 0% Van Dijken et al.1996
BRILLANT 5y 15 85% 3% Thordrup et al. 2001
VITADUR N 15 85% 3%
CEREC COS2.02 15 92.5% 1.5%
OCCLUSIN 3y 60 96.7% 1.1% Wendt et al. 1992
Clinical trials: Direct Resin CompositesMaterial Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
TETRIC - PERTAC 2y 45 93% 3.5% Schleibenbogen et al. 1992
TETRIC - PERTAC 3Y 30 93% 2.3% Manhart et al. 2000
APH 1Y 29 96.5% 3.4% Krejci et al. 1994
TETRIC - Z100 4-6Y 50 94% 1.2% Leirskar et al. 2003
Clinical trials: Direct Resin CompositesMaterial Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
Annual Failure Rate range = 0-10%
« Without extremes » range 1.1-3.5%
Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
SR ISOSIT-CONCEPT 1y 34 88.2% 11.8% Bessing et al. 1991
SR ISOSIT-CONCEPT 7Y 36 75% 3.6% Donly et al. 1999
SR ISOSIT-CONCEPT 11Y 135 83% 1.6% Pallesen et al. 2003
VISIO-GEM 6y 118 41% 9.8% Krämer et al. 1996
Clinical trials: Laboratory Resin Composites
Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
TARGIS 1.5Y 43 100% 0% Monaco et al. 2001
TARGIS 1Y 118 41% 9.8% Yilmaz et al. 2003
TARGIS 2Y (0.5-4Y) 40 100% 0% Kukrer et al. 2004
SIGNUM 3Y 113 97.4% 0.86% Barone et al. 2008
Clinical trials: Laboratory Resin Composites
Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
SR ISOSIT 11Y 84 83% 1.54% Palessen et al, 2003 BRILLANT 28 84% 1.45% ESTILUX
28
TPH direct 3.5Y 2x22 100% 0% Spreafico et al, 2005 indirect
100% 0%
Clinical trials: Laboratory Resin Composites
Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
Clinical trials: Laboratory Resin Composites
9 studies YFR = 0% – 11.8% 0% - 3.6% (without extremes)
Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
MIRAGE 2y 310 95.8% 2.1% Jensen et al. 1988
MIRAGE 3Y 50 96.6% 1.3% Hoglung et al. 1994
MIRAGE 4Y 50 100% 0% Friedl et al. 1997
MIRAGE 6Y 58 88% 2% van Dijken et al 1998
MICROBOND-FORTUNE 10y 183 97% 0.3% Fuzzi et al. 1998
Clinical trials: Feldspathic Porcelains
Clinical trials: Feldspatic PorcelainsMaterial Duration n= survival YFR study
MIRAGE 5Y 20 95.8% 1.6% Molin et al, 2000CEREC 20 96.6% "EMPRESS 20 100% --GOLD 20 100% --
COSMOTECH II 8Y 45 80% 2.5% Hayashi et al, 2000
Diff. FP brands 3Y 47 90% 3.6% Manhart et al, 2000EMPRESS 24 100% --
Clinical trials: Feldspatic PorcelainsMaterial Duration n= survival YFR study
LFC DUCERAM 2.1Y 45 Gemalanaz et al, 2001 (3-46m)
LC: rmGIC 77% 15.7LC: composite 87% 6.2
9 studies YFR = 0% – 6.2%
Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study
EMPRESS 1y 130 97.5% 1.3% Studer et al. 1996
EMPRESS 4.5Y 125 95.6% 1% Fradeani et al. 1997
EMPRESS 6Y 138 94.9% 0.9% Lehner et al. 1998
EMPRESS 4y 96 93% 1.8% Krämer et al. 1999
EMPRESS 6Y 39 93% 1.2% Krämer et al. 2000 100% marginal ditching
Clinical trials: Pressed Ceramics
Clinical trials: Pressed CeramicsMaterial Duration n= survival YFR study
EMPRESS 4Y 21 100% -- Barghi et al, 2002
EMPRESS 2Y 86 100% -- Coehlo Santos et al, 2004
LFC DUCERAM 86 100%EMPRESS 3Y 40 100% -- Fabianelli et al, 2006
EMPRESS 4Y 130 93% 1.75% Naeselius et al. 2008
EMPRESS 12Y 96 84% 1.33% Franckenberger et al. 2008
EMPRESS 6Y 64 94% 1.05% Galiatsatos et al. 2008
J Can Dent Assoc 2002;68:233-237.Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-Empress ceramic restorations—a literature review.
El-Mowafy O, Brochu JF.
6 studies YFR = 0.88% – 1.28%
LITER
ATU
RE
Revie
w
J Adhesive Dent. 2001;3:45-64. Longevity of Restorations in Posterior Teeth and Reasons for Failures
Hickel R, Manhart J.
Aust Dent . 1999;44:157-168. The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: a review
Bergman MA.
Main failure pattern of porcelain inlays is bulk fracture Contraindicated in case of bruxism Require minimal dimensions Differential wear between ceramics & luting composite Wear of opposing structures