Burke FJT, Crisp RJ A practice-based assessment of patients’ knowledge of dental materials. Br Dent J. 2015; 219:577-82 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.956
Barnes IE, Kidd EAM Composite resin restorative materials – a review. Part 1. Dent Update. 1980; 7:221-236
Buonocore MG A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955; 34:849-853 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345550340060801
Ward GT, Buonocore MG, Woolridge ED Preliminary report of a technique using nuva-seal in the treatment and repair of anterior fractures without pins. N Y State Dent J. 1972; 38:269-274
Barnes IE, Kidd EAM Composite resin restorative materials – a review. Part 2. Dent Update. 1980; 7:273-283
Burke FJT Posterior composites: the current status. Dent Update. 1986; 13:227-236
Phillips RW, Avery DR, Mehra R Observations on a composite resin for class II restorations: twoyear report. J Prosthet Dent. 1972; 28:164-169 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(72)90133-3
Leinfelder KF, Sluder TB, Sockwell CL Clinical evaluation of composite resins as anterior and posterior restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1975; 33:407-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(75)80037-0
Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G Three-year follow-up of five posterior composites: in vivo wear. J Dent. 1993; 21:74-78 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90149-k
Opdam N, Skupien JA, Kreulen CM Case report: a predictable technique to establish occlusal contact in extensive direct composite resin restorations: the DSO-technique. Oper Dent. 2016; 41:(S7) https://doi.org/10.2341/13-112-T
Burke FJT Restoration of the minimal carious lesion using composite resin. Dent Update. 1988; 15:232-235
Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Curtis JW, Ergle JW Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129:55-66 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0022
Burke FJT, McHugh S, Hall AC Amalgam and composite use in UK general dental practice in 2001. Br Dent J. 2003; 194:613-618 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810258
Burke FJT, Shortall AC Successful restoration of load-bearing cavities in posterior teeth with direct-replacement resin-based composite. Dent Update. 2001; 28:388-398 https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2001.28.8.388
Mair LH Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int. 1998; 29:483-490
Uctasli S, Shortall AC, Burke FJT Effect of accelerated restorative techniques on the microleakage of Class II composites. Am J Dent. 2002; 15:153-158
Lynch CD, Blum IR, McConnell RJ Teaching posterior resin composites in UK and Ireland dental schools: do current teaching programmes match the expectation of clinical practice arrangements?. Br Dent J. 2018; 224:967-972 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.446
Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987; 66:1636-1639 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660110601
Burke FJT Amalgam to tooth-coloured materials – implications for clinical practice and dental education: governmental restrictions and amalgam-usage survey results. J Dent. 2004; 32:343-350 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.02.003
Konstantin J, Scholz J, Hiller K-A Twoyear performance of a novel self-adhesive-composite equivalent to conventional bulk fill. J Dent Res. 2021; 100:(B)
Burke FJT, MacKenzie L, Sands P, Shortall ACC Ten tips for avoiding post-operative sensitivity with posterior composite restorations. Dent Update. 2021; 48:823-835
Burke FJT, Palin WM, James A The current status of materials for posterior composite restorations: the advent of low shrink. Dent Update. 2009; 36:401-409 https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2009.36.7.401
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, James A Five year clinical evaluation of restorations placed in a low shrinkage stress composite in UK general dental practices. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2017; 25:108-114 https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01584Burke07
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, Panchal D A practice-based clinical evaluation of a bulk fill restorative material. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2016; 24:152-157 https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01545Burke06
Cuevas-Suárez CE, da Rosa WLO, Lund RG Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and metaanalysis. J Adhes Dent. 2019; 21:7-26 https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a41975
Mehta SB, Lima VP, Bronkhorst EM Clinical performance of direct composite resin restorations in a full mouth rehabilitation for patients with severe tooth wear: 5.5-year results. J Dent. 2021; 112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103743
Burke FJT, Mackenzie L, Shortall ACC Survival rates of resin composite restorations in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth. Dent Update. 2019; 46:523-535
Fereira CT, Albuquerque E, Barbosa S Clinical time and post-operative sensitivity when using bulk-fill composites with universal adhesives. J Dent Res. 2018; 97:(B)
A history of posterior composite restorations as viewed through the pages of Dental Update FJ Trevor Burke Louis Mackenzie Adrian CC Shortall Dental Update 2024 50:5, 707-709.
Patients today are increasingly seeking tooth-coloured restorations for their posterior dentition, and with the anticipated decline in the use of amalgam as a result of the Minamata Agreement, this trend will increase. However, these are relatively recent considerations, given that the first dedicated resin composite material intended for use in posterior teeth appeared in 1986. Although macro-filled resin composite materials were available prior to 1986, they exhibited poor wear resistance. This article reviews the history of so-called ‘posterior composite’ restorations as gleaned from the pages of Dental Update, including how some of the early techniques described were subsequently proved to be erroneous, and how knowledge from research and clinical experience corrected these, so that clinicians may now place predictable, reliable, aesthetic ‘posterior composite’ restorations.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Lessons from the history of posterior composites may provide the foundation for their successful use in contemporary clinical practice.
Article
The use of resin composite as a restorative material for loadbearing situations in posterior teeth (termed ‘posterior composite’ throughout this article) has increased in recent years.1 However, in terms of dental history, posterior composite is relatively young, at least compared with dental amalgam, which has been the ‘gold standard’ for over 125 years,2 and gold castings, which have been used for a similar length of time. However, patient attitudes to a dental material that was not tooth-coloured appeared to change in the final decade of the last century,3 as patient demand for aesthetic restorations in their posterior, as well as anterior teeth increased, patient anxiety with regard to a mercurycontaining material being used in their teeth increasing,4 and, the increasing impetus away from dental amalgam for environmental reasons, which was hastened by the Minamata Agreement in 2013,5 in which 147 countries agreed to reduce (or phase out) their use of mercury. Dentistry, by way of dental amalgam, was part of that. The continuing reduction in the use of dental amalgam also results from professional demand for adhesive materials that promote the principles of minimally invasive dentistry.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
