Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities

• Published in: Journal of dentistry Vol. 35; no. 2; pp. 124 - 129
• Main Authors: Lindberg, Anders, van Dijken, Jan W.V, Lindberg, M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.02.2007; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Bicuspid; Clinical; Compomer; Compomers - chemistry; Composite Resins - chemistry; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries - etiology; Dental Cavity Preparation - classification; Dental Materials - chemistry; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods; Dentistry; Enamel; Failure; Female; Fluorides; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Light; Male; Middle Aged; Molar; ODONTOLOGI; ODONTOLOGY; Resin composite; Restoration; Root Canal Therapy; Sandwich; Studies; Survival Analysis; Tooth Fractures - etiology; Sandwich; Clinical; Resin composite; Compomer; Restoration
• ISSN: 0300-5712; 1879-176X; 1879-176X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.06.003

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate in an intraindividual comparison the durability of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich restoration in a 9 years follow-up. A polyacid-modified resin composite (PMRC; compomer, Dyract) was placed as an intermediate layer and covered with resin composite (RC, Prisma TPH). A direct RC restoration was used as control. Methods Each of 57 patients, received at least one pair of Class II restorations, one open sandwich and one resin composite control. In total 75 pairs of Class II restorations, 68 premolars and 82 molars, all in occlusion, were placed by two dentists. Most of the cavities were surrounded by enamel. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 24, 36 months and 9 years by slightly modified USPHS criteria. Survival of restorations grouped on the two different techniques was determined using Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Results After 9 years, 14 of 135 evaluated restorations were estimated as unacceptable, 6 in the sandwich group and 8 in the control group. Over all annual failure rate during the 9-year period was 1.1%. The survival rate was not significant different between the two techniques ( p = 0.604). Reasons of failure were: secondary caries (8), fracture of tooth (1), fracture of restoration (2), endodontic treatment (3). Conclusions Both restorative techniques showed good durability during the 9-year period. No clinical advantage was observed for the sandwich technique.