Related Experiment Videos
Restoration deterioration related to later failure
1University of Adelaide, Department of Dentistry, South Australia.
Operative Dentistry
|July 1, 1993
Summary
Dental amalgam and composite restorations show different failure predictors. Surface tarnishing predicts amalgam failure, while composites fail due to roughness, fracture, and color mismatch. Many unsatisfactory restorations function long-term.
Area of Science:
- Dental Materials Science
- Restorative Dentistry
- Clinical Dental Research
Background:
- Dental restorations like amalgams and resin composites are crucial for oral health.
- Understanding factors predicting restoration failure is essential for improving longevity and patient outcomes.
- Previous studies have explored various deterioration signs, but a comprehensive analysis linking them to failure modes is needed.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the relationship between clinical signs of deterioration and subsequent failure in a large cohort of dental amalgams and anterior resin composites.
- To identify specific predictive factors for failure in each restorative material type over an extended observation period (up to 16 years).
Main Methods:
- Longitudinal study analyzing a large number of dental amalgam and anterior resin composite restorations.
- Systematic assessment of clinical factors (e.g., surface tarnishing, marginal fracture, staining, roughness, color mismatch) as potential predictors of failure.
- Categorization of failures into true failures directly related to the restorative material.
Main Results:
- True failures occurred in 7.5% of amalgam and 30.4% of composite restorations.
- For amalgams, surface tarnishing was significantly associated with failure.
- For composites, surface roughness, marginal fracture, and color mismatch were significantly associated with failure.
- Marginal and surface staining were not significant predictors for either material type.
- Many restorations deemed unsatisfactory continued functioning for 2.5–3.5 years before replacement, often for non-material-related reasons.
Conclusions:
- Deterioration signs have varying predictive value for amalgam and composite restoration failures.
- Surface tarnishing is a key indicator for amalgam failure, whereas composites are more susceptible to failure linked to surface texture, marginal integrity, and aesthetics.
- A clearer definition of 'unsatisfactory' restorations is needed, focusing on adverse dental health effects rather than solely material degradation.