Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations A three-year clinical trial
Author
dc.contributor.author
Moncada, Gustavo
Author
dc.contributor.author
Martin, Javier
Author
dc.contributor.author
Fernández Godoy, Eduardo
Author
dc.contributor.author
Hemnel, Marie
Author
dc.contributor.author
Mjör, Ivar
Author
dc.contributor.author
Gordan, Valeria
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2018-12-20T15:24:42Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2018-12-20T15:24:42Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2009
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
Journal of the American Dental Association, Volumen 140, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 425-432.
Identifier
dc.identifier.issn
00028177
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0191
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/159060
Abstract
dc.description.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.