Posterior Direkt Restorasyonlarda Nerede Başarısızlık Yaşıyoruz?

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 242 - 249, 07.05.2021

Ezgi Sonkaya , Sema Yazıcı Akbıyık , Elif Pınar Bakır , Şeyhmus Bakır

https://doi.org/10.33631/duzcesbed.885725

Cited By: 3

Öz

ÖZ
Amaç: Amalgam ve kompozit rezinler, posterior bölgede en çok tercih edilen restoratif materyallerdir. Son yıllarda adeziv ve kompozit materyallerdeki gelişmeler sayesinde, posterior bölge çürük tedavisinde sıklıkla kompozit rezin restorasyonlar kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı merkezlerde, farklı materyallerle (amalgam ve kompozit) yapılan direkt posterior restorasyonların klinik performansını, restorasyona ve hastaya ait faktörler ile kesitsel bir çalışmayla karşılaştırarak değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmada Dicle Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı’na başvuran 77 hastada, 365 restorasyon iki tecrübeli araştırıcı tarafından Modifiye Rgye kriterlerine göre değerlendirilmiştir. Kriterlerin başarısız olma durumuna etkisi olan restorasyona ve hastaya bağlı değişkenleri tespit edebilmek için Ki-kare testi uygulanmıştır.
Bulgular: Hastaya ve restorasyona bağlı faktörlerin yapılan restorasyonların klinik performanslarına etkisi incelendiğinde, sonuçlara göre restorasyonun tipi, restorasyon derinliği, yapıldığı merkez, hastanın sigara içme alışkanlığı, parafonksiyonel alışkanlıkları ve oral hijyen alışkanlıklarının farklılığı restorasyon performansını anlamlı düzeyde etkilemiştir (p<0,05). Amalgam dolgu materyali kullanılarak yapılan restorasyonların başarısızlık oranı %69 ve kompozit dolgu maddesi kullanılarak yapılan restorasyonların başarısızlık oranı %50,8 olarak bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Direk posterior restorasyonların ağız içi sağ kalım süresi, uygulayan diş hekimi tecrübesi ve bilgi birikimi, uygulama aşamalarındaki titizlik, restoratif materyali tanıma ve vakaya uygun seçim kriterleri bilgisi ile hastaya bağlı çeşitli faktörlerden de etkilenmektedir. Restorasyonların başarısının doğrudan bu etkenlere bağlı olduğunu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

amalgam, kompozit, klinik başarı

Teşekkür

Değerlendirmeye aldığınız ve ilginiz için şimdiden teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

Where Do We Fail in Posterior Direct Restorations?

Öz

Aim: Amalgam and composite resins are the most preferred restorative materials on the posterior side. Thanks to the developments in adhesives and composite materials in recent years, composite resin restorations are frequently used in the treatment of posterior caries. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of direct posterior restorations performed with different materials in different centers, comparing the restoration and patient factors with a cross-sectional study.
Material and Methods: In the study, 365 restorations in 77 patients who applied to Dicle University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Restorative Dentistry, were evaluated according to Modified Rgye criteria by two researchers. Chi-square test was used to determine the variables that affect the failure of the criteria and to record the factors belonging to the restoration and the patient.
Results: When the effects of factors related to the patient and the restoration on the clinical performance of the restorations were examined, the difference between the type of restoration, the depth of the restoration, the center where it was performed, the patient's smoking, parafunctional and oral hygiene habits significantly affected the restoration performance (p <0.05). The failure rate of restorations made using amalgam was 69% and the failure rate of restorations made using composite was 50.8%.
Conclusion: The intraoral survival of direct posterior restorations is influenced by the experience and knowledge of the practicing dentist, the meticulousness of the application stages, the knowledge of the restorative material recognition and selection criteria appropriate to the case, and various factors depending on the patient, and it shows that the success of the restorations directly depends on these factors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

amalgam, composite, clinical success

Kaynakça

• 1. Marcenes W, Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Flaxman A, Naghavi M, Lopez A. Global burden of oral conditions in 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. Journal of Dental Research. 2013; 92(7): 592-7.
• 2. Affaırs, ACOS. Direct and indirect restorative materials. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 2003; 134(4): 463-72.
• 3. Ömürlü H, Arısu HD, Eligüzeloğlu E, Üçtaşlı MB, Bala O. Gazi üniversitesi diş hekimliği fakültesi diş hastalıkları ve tedavisi anabilim dalına başvuran hastaların direkt restorasyonlarının klinik başarısının değerlendirilmesi. GÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2011; 28(1): 23-8.
• 4. Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hickel R. Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments. Dent Clin NorthAm. 2002; 46(2): 303-39.
• 5. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001; 3(1): 45-64.
• 6. da Silva Pereira RA, da Silva GR, Barcelos LM, Cavalcanti KGBA, Herval AM, Ardenghi TM, Soares CJ. Practice-based analysis of direct posterior dental restorations performed in a public health service: Retrospective long-term survival in Brazil. PLoS One. 2020; 15(12): e0243288.
• 7. Flavio Fernando Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, de Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?. Braz. Oral Res. 2017; 31(1): e56.
• 8. Kopperud SE, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur J Oral Sci 2012; 120(6): 539-48.
• 9. Kubo S, Kawasakı A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater J. 2011; 30(3): 374-83.
• 10. Lucarotti PS, Holder RL, Burke FJ. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 3): variation by dentist factors. J Dent. 2005; 33(10): 827-35.
• 11. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012; 28(1): 87-101.
• 12. Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR et al. Anterior composite restorations: a systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater. 2015; 31(10): 1214-24.
• 13. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations: A meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012; 14(5): 407-31.
• 14. 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.
• 15. Üçtaşlı MB, Can HE, Omurlu H. Amalgam restorasyonların değiştirilme nedenleri ve klinik ömrü. A. Ü. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2002; 29(1): 9-16.
• 16. Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A six-year prospective randomized study of a randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in class II restorations. Dent Mater. 2013; 29(2): 191-98.
• 17. Tanner J, Tolvanen M, Garoushi S. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite restorations in posterior teeth - results of 2.5 year follow-up. Open Dent J. 2018; 12: 476-85.
• 18. Pallesen U, JWV van Dijken. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in class II restorations. J Dent 2015; 43(12): 1547-58.
• 19. Freitas F, Pinheiro de Melo T, Delgado AH, Monteiro P, Rua J, Proença L, Caldeira J, Mano Azul A, Mendes JJ. Varying the polishing protocol ınfluences the color stability and surface roughness of bulk-fill resin-based composites. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2021; 12(1): 1.
• 20. Ünlü N, Ülkü S. Son 10 yılda kompozit rezin restorasyonlar: in vivo ve in vitro çalışmalarla bir derleme. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Dergisi. 2020; 2(3): 124-45.
• 21. Ástvaldsdóttir Á, Dagerhamn J, Van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranæus S, Nilsson M. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – A systematic review. J Dent. 2015; 43(8): 934-54.
• 22. Beck F, Lettner S, Graf A. Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Dent Mater. 2015; 31(8): 958-85.
• 23. Ravasini F, Bellussi D, Pedrazzoni M, Ravasini T, Orlandini P, Meleti M, Bonanini M. Treatment outcome of posterior composite ındirect restorations: a retrospective 20- year analysis of 525 cases with a mean follow-up of 87 months. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018; 38(5): 655-63.
• 24. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BAC. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior compositeresin restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9(5): 469-75.
• 25. Opdam NJ, Loomans BA, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed bydental students. J Dent. 2004; 32(5): 379-83.
• 26. Alvanforoush N. Palamara J, Wong RH, Burrow MF. Comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995-2005 and 2006–2016 periods. Australian Dental Journal. 2017; 62(2): 132-45.
• 27. Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, Dos Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43(9): 1043-50.
• 28. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(6): 775-83.
• 29. Juliana JJ, Heliana DM, Bárbara K, Lilian M, Luana SA, Paulo MY, Júlio CFA. et. all Restorations after selective caries removal: 5-year randomized trial. Journal of Dentistry. 2020; 99: 103416.
• 30. Soares AC, Cavalheiro A. A review of amalgam and composite longevity of posterior restorations. Reu Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2010; 51(3): 155-64.
• 31. Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR. Survival analysis of posteriro restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent. 2002; 27(5): 488-92.
• 32. Uzer Çelik E, Yazkan B, Tunaç AT. Assessment of the factors affecting the clinical performance of direct posterior restorations. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg. 2016; 37(2): 99-106.
• 33. Da RR, Paulo A. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. Journal of Dentistry. 2006; 34(7): 427-35.
• 34. Ibrahım HF, Hassan GS. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the potential effect of cigarette smoking on enamel of human smokers’ teeth. Archives of Oral Biology, 2021; 121: 104953.
• 35. Zanetti F, Zhao X, Pan J, Peitsch MC, Hoeng J, Ren Y. Effects of cigarette smoke and tobacco heating aerosol on color stability of dental enamel, dentin, and composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int, 2019; 50(2): 156-66.
• 36. Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Braspenning JCC, Huysmans MCDNJM. Risk factors for dental restoration survival: a practice-based study. J Dent Res. 2019; 98(4): 414-22.
• 37. Kusuma Yulianto HD, Rinastiti M, Cune MS, de Haan-Visser W, Atema-Smit J, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC. Biofilm composition and composite degradation during intra-oral wear. Dent Mater. 2019; 35(5): 740-50.