The Evaluation of Reasons for Replacement of Amalgam and Composite

Abstract

Amalgam and composite restorations take prime place in restorative dental practices. Over time, restorations are replaced for various reasons. This study aimed to evaluate the reasons for restoration replacement of patients presenting at Dicle University, Dental Faculty, Restorative Dentistry Clinic. The study comprised 705 patients (402 female, 303 male) who presented at the dental clinic for routine dental treatment. Without taking gender into consideration, patients aged 15-80 who were determined to have amalgam and composite filling problems were included in the study. The patients were allocated to 5 groups according to age: Group 1, 16-25 years, Group 2, 26-35 years, Group 3, 36-45 years, Group 4, 46-55 years, Group 5, 56 years and over. The failure of the fillings was diagnosed from clinical and radiological evaluation results. The age, gender and reason for the replacement of the restoration were recorded for all patients. The obtained data was evaluated with Student’s t test and a difference was determined between the age groups. Of 705 restorations, 378 (53.62%) were amalgam and 327 were composite (46.38%). When the reasons for replacement of restorations were examined the primary reason was secondary caries (30.78%), followed by fracture of the restoration (17.6%) and overflowing filling (15.46%). A significant difference was found between the age groups in terms of the parameter of reason for restoration replacement (p<0.05). To determine between which age groups this difference was more significant, the Tukey HSD test was applied as a multiple comparison test. The most significant reason for replacement of amalgams and composites was found to be secondary caries. The factor of gender had no effect on the reasons for replacement of the restoration. Failure of the restoration was seen to be greater in the 16-25 age group. Clinical article(J Int Dent Med Res 2013; 6: (1), pp. 15-19)

Keywords

• Replacement, Amalgam, Composite.

The Evaluation of Reasons for Replacement of Amalgam and Composite

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Deligeorgi V, Wilson N H, Fouzas D, Kouklaki E, Burke F J, Mjor I A. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations in student clinics in Manchester and Athens. Eur J Dent Educ 2000;4(4):153-159.
2. Braga S R, Vasconcelos B T, Macedo M R, Martins V R, Sobral M A. Reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorative materials in Brazil. Quintessence Int 2007;38(4):e189-194.
3. Mjor I A, Toffenetti F. Placement and replacement of resinbased composite restorations in Italy. Oper Dent 1992;17(3):82
4. Friedl K H, Hiller K A, Schmalz G. Placement and replacement of composite restorations in Germany. Oper Dent 1995;20(1):34-38.
5. Chrysanthakopoulos N A. Placement, replacement and longevity of composite resin-based restorations in permanent teeth in Greece. Int Dent J 2012;62(3):161-166.
6. Chrysanthakopoulos N A. Reasons for Placement and Replacement of Resin-based Composite Restorations in Greece. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2011;5(3):87-93.
7. Forss H, Widstrom E. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62(2):82-86.
8. Al-Negrish A R. Composite resin restorations: a cross-sectional survey of placement and replacement in Jordan. Int Dent J 2002;52(6):461-468.

9. Gilmour A S, Evans P, Addy L D. Attitudes of general dental practitioners in the UK to the use of composite materials in posterior teeth. Br Dent J 2007;202(12):E32.
10. Mjor I A. The basis for everyday real-life operative dentistry. Oper Dent 2001;26(5):521-524.
11. Mjor I A, Qvist V. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25(1):25-30.
12. Wilson N H, Mjor I A. The teaching of Class I and Class II direct composite restorations in European dental schools. J Dent 2000;28(1):15-21.
13. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas S, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent 2001;Supplement(6):119-144.
14. Van Meerbeek B, DE Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28(3):215-235.
15. Friedl K H, Hiller K A, Schmalz G. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations in Germany. Oper Dent 1994;19(6):228-232.
16. Mair L H. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 1998;29(8):483-490.
17. Opdam N J, Bronkhorst E M, Roeters J M, Loomans B A. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007;23(1):2-8.
18. Smales R J, Gerke D C, White I L. Clinical evaluation of occlusal glass ionomer, resin, and amalgam restorations. J Dent 1990;18(5):243-249.
19. Mjor I A, Jokstad A. Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment and resin-based composite materials. J Dent 1993;21(6):338-343.
20. Palotie U, Vehkalahti M. Reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in posterior teeth of young Finnish adults. Acta Odontol Scand 2002;60(6):325-329.
21. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin M D, Leroux B G, Rue T, Leitao J, Derouen T A. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(6):775-783.
22. Mjor I A, Moorhead J E, Dahl J E. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 2000;50(6):361-366.
23. Burke F J, Wilson N H, Cheung S W, Mjor I A. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent 2001;29(5):317-324.
24. Kidd E A M, Smith B G N, Watson T F, Pickard H M M O O D. Pickard's manual of operative dentistry. 8th ed. / Edwina A.M. Kidd, Bernard G.N. Smith and Timothy F. Watson. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
25. Mjor I A. Repair versus replacement of failed restorations. Int Dent J 1993;43(5):466-472.
26. Wilson N H, Burke F J, Mjor I A. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations of direct restorative materials by a selected group of practitioners in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 1997;28(4):245-248.
27. Kroeze H J, Plasschaert A J, Van 'T Hof M A, Truin G J. Prevalence and need for replacement of amalgam and composite restorations in Dutch adults. J Dent Res 1990;69(6):1270-1274.
28. Oginni A O, Olusile A O. A survey of amalgam restorations in a south-western Nigerian population. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(3):295-299.
29. Pink F E, Minden N J, Simmonds S. Decisions of practitioners regarding placement of amalgam and composite restorations in general practice settings. Oper Dent 1994;19(4):127-132.
30. Fontana M, Gonzalez-Cabezas C. Secondary caries and restoration replacement: an unresolved problem. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21(1):15-18, 21-14, 26 passim; quiz 30. Soncini J A, Maserejian N N, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(6):763-772.
31. Simecek J W, Diefenderfer K E, Cohen M E. An evaluation of replacement rates for posterior resin-based composite and amalgam restorations in U.S. Navy and marine corps recruits. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(2):200-209; quiz 249.