Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.6.460

REPLACEMENT OF POSTERIOR RESTORATIONS  

Kim, Ji-Young (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University)
Choi, Kyoung-Kyu (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University)
Park, Sang-Jin (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University)
Publication Information
Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics / v.31, no.6, 2006 , pp. 460-469 More about this Journal
Abstract
This article complies a survey on the replacement of the posterior restorations and accesses possible factors that influence the replacement of posterior restorations. The data was collected from patients that visited department of conservative dentistry from Dec 1st 2003, to Sep 3rd 2004. Teeth was restricted to posterior permanent teeth. 9 dentists recorded age, gender of patients, tooth location, cavity farm and restorative material. They rated marginal adaptation, anatomic form, secondary caries of old restoration by modified Ryge criteria system. The statistical analysis was performed with Chi square test (p < 0.05) for replacement ratio according to patients, tooth factor and One way ANOVA was performed for comparison of old restoration according to restorative material. The results were as follows; 1. The female (62%) was statistically higher ratio than the male (38%). 2. The distribution of replacement case according to age, the rate of replacement was in descending order, 20's (38.3%), 40's (16.8%), 30's (15.9%), 10's (11.1%), 50's (9.2%), 60's (8.7%). 3. The rate of replacement was 88% for molar and 12% for premolar (p $gt; 0.05). 4. The rate of replacement was 39% for maxillar and 61% for mandible (p $gt; 0.05). 5. The material of restorations was amalgam (69%), gold inlay (17%), composite resin (13%). 6. In rating system by modified Ryge criteria system on margin adaptation, there was statistically significant difference between amalgam and gold inlay. But on anatomic form and caries, there was no statistically significant difference among the material of restorations.
Keywords
Replacement; Posterior restorations; Age; Gender; Tooth location; Class of cavity preparation; Material of old restoration;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Mjor IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 55:58-63, 1997   DOI
2 Burke FJT, Cheung SW, Mjor lA, Wilson NHK. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quint Int 30:234-42, 1999
3 Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjor IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent 29(5): 317-24, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Latzel H. van.t Hof MA, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. The influence of the amalgam alloy on the survival of amalgam restorations: a secondary analysis of multiple controlled clinical trials. J Dent Res 76:1787-1798. 1997   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Mjor IA. Long term cost of restorative therapy using different materials. Scand J Dent Res 100:60-5. 1992
6 Stroll R. Sieweke M. Pieper K, Stachniss V. Schulte A. Longevity of cast gold inlays and partial crowns-a retrospective study at a dental school clinic. Clin Oral Invest 3:100-104. 1999   DOI
7 Gruythuysen RJM, Kreulen CM. Tobi H. van Amerongen E. Akerboom HEM. 15-year evaluation of Class n amalgam restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 24:207-10. 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Plasmans PJJM. Creugers NHJ. Mulder J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 77:453-460, 1998   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Palotie U, Vehkalahti M. Reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in posterior teeth of young Finnish adults. Acta Odontol Scand 60(6): 325-9, 2002   DOI
10 Ryge G, Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Mjor I. Standardization of clinical investigators for studies of restorative materials. Swed Dent J 5(5-6) :235-239. 1981
11 Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. Int Dent J 48:3-16, 1998   DOI   ScienceOn
12 J Wagner, K.A. Hiller, G. Schmalz. Long-term clinical performance and longevity of gold alloy vs ceramic partial crown. Clin Oral Invest 7 :80-85, 2003   DOI
13 Mjor IA. Amalgam and composite resin restorations: longevity and reasons for replacement. Quint Int 61-80, 1989
14 Osborn JW, Norman RD, Gale EN. A 14-year clinical assessment of 12 amalgam alloys. Quint Int 22:278-82. 1991
15 Mjor IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Ocontol Scand 57(5): 257-62, 1999   DOI
16 Deligeorgi V, Mjor lA, Wilson NH. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care 8(1) :5-11, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
17 M. Hayashi, N.H.F. Wilson, D.C. Watts. Quality of marginal adaptation evaluation of posterior composites in clinical trials. J Dent Res 82(1) :59-63. 2003   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3(1) :45-64, 2001
19 Christensen GJ. The coming demise of the cast gold restoration? J Am Dent Assoc. 127: 1233-1236. 1996   DOI
20 Hamilton JC, Moffa JP, Ellison JA, Jenkins WA. Marginal fracture not a predictor of longevity for two dental amalgam alloys: a ten-year study. J Prosthet Dent 50 :200-2. 1983   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Ryge G. The Californian dental association quality evaluation system: a standard for self-assessment In Quality Evaluation of Dental restorations, edited by KJ Anusavice Chicago. Quintessence Pub Co Inc. 273-286, 1989
22 Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 25:459-473, 1997   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Mjor IA. Moorhead JE. Dahl JE. Reason for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 50(6) :360-366. 2000
24 Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30(4):347-358. 1980
25 Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictions of amalgam restorations. J Dent 16:17-20. 1991   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Anderson MH. Current concepts of dental caries and its prevention. Operative Dentistry 6(1): 11-18, 2001
27 Mjor IA. Dahl JE. Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 60(1):25-28. 2001   DOI
28 Forss H, Wid strom E. Factors influencing the selection of restorative materials in dental care in Finland. J Dent 24:257-62, 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Mjor IA, C Shen, ST Eliasson, S Richter. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 27(2):117-123. 2002
30 Allander L, Birkhed D, Bratthall D. Reasons for replacement of class II amalgam restorations in private practice. Swed Dent J 14: 179-84, 1990