Switch to Dark theme

References

Rees JS, Jagger DC. Abfraction lesions: myth or reality?. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003; 15:263-271
Pecie R, Krejci I, Garcia-Godoy F, Bortolotto T. Non-carious cervical lesions – a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 1. Prevention. Am J Dent. 2011; 254:49-56
Grippo JO. Abfractions: a new classification of hard tissue lesions of teeth. J Esthet Dent. 1991; 3:14-19
Lee WC, Eakle WS. Possible role of tensile stress in the etiology of cervical erosive lesions of teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 52:374-380
Lee HC, Lin CL, Wang CH, Cheng CH, Chang CH. Stresses at the cervical lesion of maxillary premolar. A finite element investigation. J Dent. 2002; 30:283-290
Rees JS. The biomechanics of abfractions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers part H. J Engineering Med. 2006; 220:69-80
Burke FJT, Whitehead SA, McCaughey AD. Contemporary concepts in the pathogenesis of the Class V non-carious lesion. Dent Update. 1995; 22:28-32
Telles D, Pegorado LF, Periera JC. Incidence of noncarious cervical lesions and their relation to the presence of wear facets. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2006; 18:178-183
Silva AG, Martins CC, Zina LG, Moreira AN, Paiva SM, Pordeus IA, Magalhaes CS. The association between occlusal factors and noncarious cervical lesions: a systematic review. J Dent. 2013; 41:9-16
Estafan A, Furnari PC, Goldstein G, Hittelman EL. In vivo correlation of noncarious cervical lesions and occlusal wear. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93:221-226
Senna P, Del bel Cury A, Rosing C. Non-carious cervical lesions and occlusion: a systematic review of clinical studies. J Oral Rehabil. 2012; 39:450-462
Bartlett DW, Shah P. A critical review of non-carious cervical (wear) lesions and the role of abfraction, erosion and abrasion. J Dent Res. 2006; 85:306-312
Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 1994; 22:195-207
Osborne-Smith KL, Burke FJT, Wilson NHF. The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. Int Dent J. 1999; 49:139-143
Bader JD, McClure F, Scurria MS, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Case-control study of non-carious cervical lesions. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1996; 24:286-291
Non carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2003; 28:109-113
Combe EC, Burke FJT, Douglas WH.Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999
Randall RC, Wilson NHF. Glass ionomer restoratives: a systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res. 1999; 78:628-637
Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements – chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:295-314
Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003; 69:516-521
Stewardson DA, Creanor S, Thornley P, Bigg T, Bromage C, Browne A, Cottam D, Dalby D, Gilmour J, Horton J, Roberts E, Westoby L, Burke T. The survival of class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3. five year survival. Br Dent J. 2012; 212
Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations – a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2010; 26:993-1000
Chee B, Rickman LJ, Satterthwaite JD. Adhesive for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review. J Dent. 2012; 40:443-452
Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeck B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:2089-1303
Van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:915-922
Van Dijken JWV. A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch- and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater. 2010; 26:940-948
Van Dijken JWV, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, Lindberg A. Clinical long-term retention of etch and rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 years evaluation. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1101-1107
Wilder AD, Swift EJ, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Bayne SC. A 12-year clinical evaluation of a three-step dentine adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140:526-536
Boghosian AA, Drummond JL, Lautenschlager E. Clinical evaluation of a dentin adhesive system: 13 year results. J Dent Res. 2007; 86:(Spec Issue)
Loguercio AD, Reis A, Barbosa AN, Roulet JF. Five year double blind randomized controlled clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in non-carious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent. 2003; 5:323-332
Franco EB, Benettti AR, Ishikiriama SK 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2006; 31:403-408
Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion layers. Am J Dent. 1992; 5:316-317
Tay FR, Pashley DH. Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentine: a review. J Dent. 2004; 32:173-179
Da Costa TEF, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effect of enamel bevel on the clinical performance of resin composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013; 25:346-356
Schroeder M, Reis A, Luque-Martinez I, Loguercio AD, Masterson D, Maia LC. Effect of enamel bevel on retention of cervical composite resin restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43:777-788
Mickenautsch S. How well are current GIC product labels related to current systematic review evidence?. Dent Update. 2011; 38:634-644
Burke FJT. The evidence base for ‘own label’ resin-based dental restoratives. Dent Update. 2013; 40:5-6

Dental materials: what goes where? class V restorations

From Volume 42, Issue 9, November 2015 | Pages 829-839

Authors

F J Trevor Burke

DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS, FDS(RCS Edin), FDS RCS(Eng), FFGDP(UK), FADM

Professor of Primary Dental Care, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK

Articles by F J Trevor Burke

Abstract

A large number of Class V restorations are placed per annum to restore cervical lesions. This paper evaluates the pathogenesis of these lesions, with particular reference to the role of occlusal factors, and reviews the literature in order to provide advice on the material(s) which are most likely to produce optimal longevity of a Class V restoration.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Resin-modified glass ionomer materials appear to provide optimal survival for a Class V restoration, but a (flowable) composite might produce a better aesthetic result.

Article

The Class V cavity constitutes a considerable burden of treatment for the general dental practitioner, with the most recent available figures in England and Wales indicating that more of these are placed than Class I restorations (circa 1.5million vs 1.4 million in the year 2004–2005),1 although these data do not differentiate between non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) and restorations placed because of root caries. However, worldwide, the prevalence of NCCL has been estimated to vary from 5–85% of the population,2 while the review by Pecie and colleagues3 found a prevalence ranging from 11–62%. The prevalence and severity also appears to increase with age. Despite this prevalence, these restorations do not appear to attract the attention or imagination of dentists worldwide, given the substantial volume of publications on Class I and II composites and the relative paucity of papers on Class V restorations.

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:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here