Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations A three-year clinical trial
Artículo
Open/ Download
Publication date
2009Metadata
Show full item record
Cómo citar
Moncada, Gustavo
Cómo citar
Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations A three-year clinical trial
Author
Abstract
Background. The authors conducted a clinical study
to examine the effectiveness of treatments other than
replacement for defective Class I and Class II resinbased composite (RBC) and amalgam (AM) restorations.
Methods. The authors recruited 66 patients (age
range, 18-80 years) with 271 Classes I and II defective restorations (RBC = 78 and AM = 193). They assigned restorations to one of the
following treatment groups on the basis of the type of defect: sealed margins (n = 48), repair (n = 27), refurbishment (n = 73), replacement (n = 42)
or untreated (n = 81). They used modified U.S. Public Health Service/Ryge
criteria to determine the quality of the restorations. Two examiners
assessed the restorations independently at the beginning of the study and
three years after treatment (Cohen’s κ = 0.74 at baseline and 0.82 at year
3). They used five parameters in assessing the restorations: marginal adaptation, anatomical form, surface roughness, secondary caries and luster.
Results. The authors assessed 237 restorations (RBC = 73, AM = 164) at
the three-year recall examination. Restorations that underwent sealing of
marginal defects exhibited significant improvements in marginal adaptation (P ≤ .001). Restorations in the refurbishment group exhibited improvements in anatomical form (P ≤ .005) and surface roughness (P ≤ .001). Restorations in the repair group exhibited improvements with regard to
anatomical form (P = .008). Replaced restorations exhibited improvements
in all parameters (P < .05), while the untreated group experienced declines
in all parameters (P < .05).
Conclusions. The results of this study show that defective RBC and AM
Class I and Class II restorations undergoing sealing of margins, repair or
refurbishment exhibited improvements three years after treatment.
Clinical Implications. Marginal sealing or repair or refurbishment of
anatomical form and roughness are conservative and simple procedures
that increase the longevity of RBC and AM restorations with minimal
intervention.
Indexation
Artículo de publicación SCOPUS
Identifier
URI: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/159060
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0191
ISSN: 00028177
Quote Item
Journal of the American Dental Association, Volumen 140, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 425-432.
Collections