Dental materials for posterior restorations
- PMID: 1291301
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1992.tb00233.x
Dental materials for posterior restorations
Abstract
Assessment of the quality of dental restorations by the Ryge system is described. Generally, the quality of dental restorations is shown to be dependent on the technique sensitivity of the restorative material as well as the skill and experience of the dentist. Concerning biocompatibility, adverse reactions related to amalgam restorations are unlikely or scarce, due to small amounts of released mercury. Resin based restorative materials contain a large number of organic compounds and, as such, the toxic and allergenic potentials are unknown. Gold and ceramics turn out to be the most biotolerable dental materials. Based on studies on longevity, data indicate that the median age of amalgam restorations is 10-12 years, of gold castings 13-14 years and more, and of composite restorations 4 years. Data on longevity of ceramic restorations are sparse. Secondary caries appears to be the most frequent cause for replacement of the different restorations, followed by marginal degradation. Secondary caries account for more failures among the resin based restorations than among amalgam. Reviewing the literature, it appears that amalgam is the best and most economic dental material for routine posterior restorations with reasonable durability. Gold is recommended for complex restorations. Resin based composites may be limited to small restorations where cosmetics is the main aspect, as wear and recurrent caries are main problems. Ceramic restorations comprise aesthetic restorations with excellent biocompatibility, however, data on longevity and marginal adaptation are not encouraging.
Similar articles
-
Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure.J Adhes Dent. 2001 Spring;3(1):45-64. J Adhes Dent. 2001. PMID: 11317384
-
Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam.J Dent. 1997 Nov;25(6):459-73. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(96)00066-8. J Dent. 1997. PMID: 9604577 Review.
-
[Despite all--do we have an appropriate substitute for amalgam?].Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993). 2008 Apr;25(2):23-6, 73. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993). 2008. PMID: 18780542 Hebrew.
-
Conservative indirect restorations for posterior teeth. Cast versus bonded ceramic.Dent Clin North Am. 1993 Jul;37(3):433-43. Dent Clin North Am. 1993. PMID: 8348996
-
The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. Part 7: Possible alternative materials to amalgam for the restoration of posterior teeth.Br Dent J. 1997 Jul 12;183(1):11-4. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809419. Br Dent J. 1997. PMID: 9254957 Review.
Cited by
-
Costs and savings associated with community water fluoridation programs in Colorado.Prev Chronic Dis. 2005 Nov;2 Spec no(Spec No):A06. Epub 2005 Nov 1. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005. PMID: 16263039 Free PMC article.
-
Restoration of 1325 teeth with partial-coverage crowns manufactured from high noble metal alloys: a retrospective case series 18.8 years after prosthetic delivery.Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Jan;26(1):849-861. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04063-8. Epub 2021 Jul 9. Clin Oral Investig. 2022. PMID: 34241707 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the Proximal Contact Tightness in Direct or In-direct Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial.J Clin Exp Dent. 2024 Aug 1;16(8):e931-e939. doi: 10.4317/jced.61558. eCollection 2024 Aug. J Clin Exp Dent. 2024. PMID: 39281797 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of fracture resistance and mode of failure of premolars restored with nanohybrid composite, ORMOCER and ceramic inlays.J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2018 May-Aug;8(2):134-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.08.004. Epub 2017 Sep 1. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2018. PMID: 29892536 Free PMC article.