References

Hickel R, Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations. Am J Dent. 2000; 13:41D-54D
Gainsford ID, Dunne SM., 3rd edn. Bristol: Wright (Dental Handbooks); 1991
United Nations Environmental Programme. Minamata Convention agreed by nations. 2013. http://unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2702ArticleD=9373
Australian Government: National Health and Medical Research Council. A Report of a NHMRC Working Party. 1999. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au
Lynch CD, Wilson NHF. Managing the phase-down of amalgam: part II. Implications for practicing arrangements and lessons from Norway. Br Dent J. 2013; 215:159-162
Opdam N, Bronkhorst E, Roeters J, Loomans B. A retrospective clinical study on the longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:2-8
Burke F, Mackenzie L, Sands P. Dental materials – what goes where? Class I and Class II cavities. Dent Update. 2013; 40:260-274
Correa M, Peres M, Peres K, Horta B, Barros A, Demarco F. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent. 2012; 40:703-710
Raj V, Macedo G, Ritter A. Longevity of posterior composite restorations. J Esthet Rest Dent. 2007; 19:3-5
Opdam N, Bronkhorst E, Loomans B, Huysmans M. 12 Year survival of composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:1063-1067
Mjör I, Moorhead J, Dahl J. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J. 2000; 50:361-366
Türkün LS, Aktener BO, Ateş M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003; 34:418-426
Burgess JO, Walker R, Davidson JM. Posterior resin-based composites: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24:465-479
Briso AL, Mestrener SR, Delicio G Clinical assessment of postoperative sensitivity in posterior composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2007; 32:(5)421-426
Mjör I. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997; 55:58-63
Kopperud S, Tveit A, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012; 120:539-548
Versluis A, Tantbirjoin D, Douglas W. Do dental composites always shrink towards the light?. J Dent Res. 1998; 77:1435-1445
Millar B, Robinson P. Eight year results with direct ceramic restorations (Cerana). Br Dent J. 2006; 21:515-520
Kwon Y, Ferracane J, Lee IB. Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:(7)801-809 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.028
Rullmann I, Schattenberg A, Marx M, Willershausen B, Ernst CP. Photoelastic determination of polymerization shrinkage stress in low-shrinkage resin composites. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2012; 4:294-299
Burgess J, Cakir D. Comparative properties of low-shrinkage composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010; 2:10-15
Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the technology. Dent Mater. 2011; 4:348-355
Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Hüsler J, Lussi A. Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials?. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:521-528
Scientific Compendium SDR™. 2005; 10-13
Lassila LV1, Nagas E, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Translucency of flowable bulk-filling composites of various thicknesses. Chin J Dent Res. 2012; 15:31-35
Ivoclar Vivadent AG Research and Development. Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill Scientific Documentation 2013; 2.3. 11-15
Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:68-74
Van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. SDR®, Xeno V+, Ceram∙X mono+ Clinical Study, Results at 12 months (Data available from Dentsply DeTrey). 2012;
Frankenberger R, Schulz M, Holl S, Seitner T, Matthias J, Roggendorf MJ.Marburg, Germany: Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical Center for Dentistry, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Campus Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3, D-35039;
Baracco B, Perdigão J, Cabrera E, Ceballos L. Two-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations. Oper Dent. 2013; 38:591-600
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004; 29:(5)481-508
Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P. A one-year clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays. Scand J Dent Res. 1994; 102:(3)186-192
Van Dijken JMV, Hörstedt P. Marginal breakdown of 5-year-old direct composite inlays. J Dent. 1996; 24:(6)389-394
Shortall AC, Baylis RL, Baylis MA, Grundy JR. Marginal seal comparisons between resin-bonded Class II porcelain inlays, posterior composite restorations, and direct composite resin inlays. Int J Prosthod. 1989; 2:(3)217-223

Class ii resin composites: restorative options

From Volume 42, Issue 8, October 2015 | Pages 721-734

Authors

Minesh Patel

BDS(Lond)

Surrey (Postgrad MSc in Aesthetic Dentistry, KCLDI), Floor 18, Tower Wing, Guy's Campus, St Thomas's Street, London, SE1 9RT, UK

Articles by Minesh Patel

Shamir B Mehta

BSc, BDS, MClinDent (Prosth), Dip FFGDP (UK), PhD, FCGDent, FDSRCS (Eng), FDSRCPS (Glas), FDTFEd, BSc, BDS, MClinDent (Prosth), Dip FFGDP (UK), PhD, FCGDent, FDSRCS (Eng), FDSRCPS (Glas), MClinDent (Prosth) Dip, FFGDP (UK)

Senior Clinical Teacher, KCL, London, UK

Articles by Shamir B Mehta

Subir Banerji

BDS, MClinDent (Prostho), PhD FDSRCPS(Glasg) FCGDent, FDTFEd, BDS, MClinDent (Prostho), PhD, FDSRCPS(Glasg), FCGDent

Articles by Subir Banerji

Email Subir Banerji

Abstract

Tooth-coloured, resin composite restorations are amongst the most frequently prescribed forms of dental restoration to manage defects in posterior teeth. The attainment of a desirable outcome when placing posterior resin composite restorations requires the clinician to have a good understanding of the benefits (as well as the limitations) posed by this material, together with a sound knowledge of placement technique. Numerous protocols and materials have evolved to assist the dental operator with this type of demanding posterior restoration. With the use of case examples, four techniques available are reported here.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: This article explores varying techniques for the restoration of Class II cavities using resin composite.

Article

The prescription of direct plastic restorative materials continues to be the primary choice for most dental practitioners for the management of carious lesions in the posterior dentition. This is largely on account of the conservation of the residual dental hard tissues, the relative economic benefits and the progressive development of direct restorative materials (especially of the adhesive variety).1

Very few would contest the notion of silver amalgam being a popular (and indeed successful) material in conservative dentistry, with a prescription record extending from the 1800s to the present time.2 In recent years however, particularly in light of the Minamata Treaty 20133 (which amongst several other objectives aims to phase down the use of dental amalgam), there has been an international paradigm shift concerning the placement of silver amalgam restorations, with countries such as Norway imposing a complete ban for the prescription of amalgam-based restorations since 2011, primarily on account of environmental concerns3 and a move towards less invasive protocols which begins to address the issues of restorative longevity versus tooth longevity over the lifetime of a patient.

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