Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Dental restoration
View on WikipediaThis article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. (November 2020) |
| Dental restoration | |
|---|---|
| ICD-9-CM | 23.2-23.4 |
Dental restoration, dental fillings, or simply fillings are treatments used to restore the function, integrity, and morphology of missing tooth structure resulting from caries or external trauma as well as the replacement of such structure supported by dental implants.[1] They are of two broad types—direct and indirect—and are further classified by location and size. Root canal therapy, for example, is a restorative technique used to fill the space where the dental pulp normally resides and are more hectic than a normal filling.
History
[edit]In Italy evidence dated to the Paleolithic, around 13,000 years ago, points to bitumen used to fill a tooth[2] and in Neolithic Slovenia, 6500 years ago, beeswax was used to close a fracture in a tooth.[3] Graeco-Roman literature, such as Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia (AD 23–79), contains references to filling materials for hollow teeth.[4]
Tooth preparation
[edit]
Restoring a tooth to good form and function requires two steps:
- preparing the tooth for placement of restorative material or materials, and
- placement of these materials.
The process of preparation usually involves cutting the tooth with a rotary dental handpiece and dental burrs, a dental laser, or through air abrasion (or in the case of atraumatic restorative treatment, hand instruments), to make space for the planned restorative materials and to remove any dental decay or portions of the tooth that are structurally unsound. If permanent restoration cannot be carried out immediately after tooth preparation, temporary restoration may be performed.
The prepared tooth, ready for placement of restorative materials, is generally called a tooth preparation. Materials used may be gold, amalgam, dental composites, glass ionomer cement, or porcelain, among others.
Preparations may be intracoronal or extracoronal. Intracoronal preparations are those which serve to hold restorative material within the confines of the structure of the crown of a tooth. Examples include all classes of cavity preparations for composite or amalgam as well as those for gold and porcelain inlays. Intracoronal preparations are also made as female recipients to receive the male components of removable partial dentures. Extracoronal preparations provide a core or base upon which restorative material will be placed to bring the tooth back into a functional and aesthetic structure. Examples include crowns and onlays, as well as veneers.
In preparing a tooth for a restoration, a number of considerations will determine the type and extent of the preparation. The most important factor to consider is decay. For the most part, the extent of the decay will define the extent of the preparation, and in turn, the subsequent method and appropriate materials for restoration.
Another consideration is unsupported tooth structure. When preparing the tooth to receive a restoration, unsupported enamel is removed to allow for a more predictable restoration. While enamel is the hardest substance in the human body, it is particularly brittle, and unsupported enamel fractures easily.
A systematic review concluded that for decayed baby (primary) teeth, putting an off‐the‐shelf metal crown over the tooth (Hall technique) or only partially removing decay (also referred to as "selective removal"[5]) before placing a filling may be better than the conventional treatment of removing all decay before filling.[6] For decayed adult (permanent) teeth, partial removal (also referred to as "selective removal"[5]) of decay before filling the tooth, or adding a second stage to this treatment where more decay is removed after several months, may be better than conventional treatment.[7]
Direct restorations
[edit]This technique involves placing a soft or malleable filling into the prepared tooth and building up the tooth. The material is then set hard and the tooth is restored. Where a wall of the tooth is missing and needs to be rebuilt, a matrix should be used before placing the material to recreate the shape of the tooth, so it is cleansable and to prevent the teeth from sticking together. Sectional matrices are generally preferred to circumferential matrices when placing composite restorations in that they favour the formation of a contact point. This is important to reduce patient complaints of food impaction between the teeth. However, sectional matrices can be more technique sensitive to use, so care and skill is required to prevent problems occurring in the final restoration.[8] The advantage of direct restorations is that they are usually set quickly and can be placed in a single procedure. The dentist has a variety of different filling options to choose from. A decision is usually made based on the location and severity of the associated cavity. Since the material is required to set while in contact with the tooth, limited energy (heat) is passed to the tooth from the setting process.
Indirect restorations
[edit]
In this technique the restoration is fabricated outside of the mouth using the dental impressions of the prepared tooth. Common indirect restorations include inlays and onlays, crowns, bridges, and veneers. Usually a dental technician fabricates the indirect restoration from records the dentist has provided. The finished restoration is usually bonded permanently with a dental cement. It is often done in two separate visits to the dentist. Common indirect restorations are done using gold or ceramics.
While the indirect restoration is being prepared, a provisory/temporary restoration is sometimes used to cover the prepared tooth to help maintain the surrounding dental tissues.
Removable dental prostheses (mainly dentures) are sometimes considered a form of indirect dental restoration, as they are made to replace missing teeth. There are numerous types of precision attachments (also known as combined restorations) to aid removable prosthetic attachment to teeth, including magnets, clips, hooks, and implants which may themselves be seen as a form of dental restoration.
The CEREC method is a chairside CAD/CAM restorative procedure. An optical impression of the prepared tooth is taken using a camera. Next, the specific software takes the digital picture and converts it into a 3D virtual model on the computer screen. A ceramic block that matches the tooth shade is placed in the milling machine. An all-ceramic, tooth-colored restoration is finished and ready to bond in place.
Another fabrication method is to import STL and native dental CAD files into CAD/CAM software products that guide the user through the manufacturing process. The software can select the tools, machining sequences and cutting conditions optimized for particular types of materials, such as titanium and zirconium, and for particular prostheses, such as copings and bridges. In some cases, the intricate nature of some implants requires the use of 5-axis machining methods to reach every part of the job.[9]
Cavity classifications
[edit]Greene Vardiman Black classification:
G.V. Black classified the cavities depending on their site: [10]
- Class I Caries affecting pit and fissure, on occlusal, buccal, and lingual surfaces of molars and premolars, and palatal of maxillary incisors.
- Class II Caries affecting proximal surfaces of molars and premolars.
- Class III Caries affecting proximal surfaces of centrals, laterals, and cuspids.
- Class V Caries affecting gingival 1/3 of facial or lingual surfaces of anterior or posterior teeth.
- Class VI Caries affecting cusp tips of molars, premolars, and cuspids.
Graham J. Mount's classification:
Mount classified cavities depending on their site and size.[11] The proposed classification was designed to simplify the identification of lesions and to define their complexity as they enlarge.
Site:
- Pit/Fissure: 1
- Contact area: 2
- Cervical: 3
Size:
- Minimal: 1
- Moderate: 2
- Enlarged: 3
- Extensive: 4
Materials used
[edit]Alloys
[edit]The following casting alloys are mostly used for making crowns, bridges and dentures. Titanium, usually commercially pure but sometimes a 90% alloy, is used as the anchor for dental implants as it is biocompatible and can integrate into bone.
- Precious metallic alloys
- gold (high purity: 99.7%)
- gold alloys (with high gold content)
- gold-platina alloy
- silver-palladium alloy
- Base metallic alloys
- cobalt-chrome alloy
- nickel-chrome alloy
Amalgam
[edit]Amalgams are alloys formed by a reaction between two or more metals, one of which is mercury. It is a hard restorative material and is silvery-grey in colour. One of the oldest direct restorative materials still in use, dental amalgam was widely used in the past with a high degree of success, although recently its popularity has declined due to a number of reasons, including the development of alternative bonded restorative materials, increase in demand for more aesthetic restorations and public perceptions concerning the potential health risks of the material.
The composition of dental amalgam is controlled by the ISO Standard for dental amalgam alloy (ISO 1559).[12] The major components of amalgam are silver, tin and copper.[12] Other metals and small amounts of minor elements such as zinc, mercury, palladium, platinum and indium are also present.[12] Earlier versions of dental amalgams, known as 'conventional' amalgams consisted of at least 65 wt% silver, 29 wt% tin, and less than 6 wt% copper.[12] Improvements in the understanding of the structure of amalgam post-1986 gave rise to copper-enriched amalgam alloys, which contain between 12 wt% and 30 wt% copper and at least 40 wt% silver.[12] The higher level of copper improved the setting reaction of amalgam, giving greater corrosion resistance and early strength after setting.
Possible indications for amalgam are for load-bearing restorations in medium to large sized cavities in posterior teeth, and in core build-ups when a definitive restoration will be an indirect cast restoration such as a crown or bridge retainer. Contraindications for amalgam are if aesthetics are paramount to patient due to the colour of the material. Amalgams should be avoided if the patient has a history of sensitivity to mercury or other amalgam components. Besides that, amalgam is avoided if there is extensive loss of tooth substance such that a retentive cavity cannot be produced, or if excessive removal of health tooth substance would be required to produce a retentive cavity.
Advantages of amalgam include durability - if placed under ideal conditions, there is evidence of good long term clinical performance of the restorations. Placement time of amalgam is shorter compared to that of composites and the restoration can be completed in a single appointment. The material is also more technique-forgiving compared to composite restorations used for that purpose. Dental amalgam is also radiopaque which is beneficial for differentiating the material between tooth tissues on radiographs for diagnosing secondary caries. The cost of the restoration is typically cheaper than composite restorations.
Disadvantages of amalgam include poor aesthetic qualities due to its colour. Amalgam does not bond to tooth easily, hence it relies on mechanical forms of retention. Examples of this are undercuts, slots/grooves or root canal posts. In some cases this may necessitate excessive amounts of healthy tooth structure to be removed. Hence, alternative resin-based or glass-ionomer cement-based materials are used instead for smaller restorations including pit and small fissure caries. There is also a risk of marginal breakdown in the restorations. This could be due to corrosion which may result in "creep" and "ditching" of the restoration. Creep can be defined as the slow internal stressing and deformation of amalgam under stress. This effect is reduced by incorporating copper into amalgam alloys. Some patients may experience local sensitivity reactions to amalgam.
Although the mercury in cured amalgam is not available as free mercury, concern of its toxicity has existed since the invention of amalgam as a dental material. It is banned or restricted in Norway, Sweden and Finland. See dental amalgam controversy.
Direct gold
[edit]Direct gold fillings were practiced during the times of the Civil War in America. Although rarely used today, due to expense and specialized training requirements, gold foil can be used for direct dental restorations.
Composite resin
[edit]
Dental composites, commonly described to patients as "tooth-colored fillings", are a group of restorative materials used in dentistry. They can be used in direct restorations to fill in the cavities created by dental caries and trauma, minor buildup for restoring tooth wear (non-carious tooth surface loss) and filling in small gaps between teeth (labial veneer). Dental composites are also used as indirect restoration to make crowns and inlays in the laboratory.
These materials are similar to those used in direct fillings and are tooth-colored. Their strength and durability is not as high as porcelain or metal restorations and they are more prone to wear and discolouration. As with other composite materials, a dental composite typically consists of a resin-based matrix, which contains a modified methacrylate or acrylate. Two examples of such commonly used monomers include bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BISMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), together with tri-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGMA). TEGMA is a comonomer which can be used to control viscosity, as Bis GMA is a large molecule with high viscosity, for easier clinical handling.[12] Inorganic filler such as silica, quartz or various glasses, are added to reduce polymerization shrinkage by occupying volume and to confirm radio-opacity of products due to translucency in property,[clarification needed] which can be helpful in diagnosis of dental caries around dental restorations. The filler particles give the composites wear resistance as well. Compositions vary widely, with proprietary mixes of resins forming the matrix, as well as engineered filler glasses and glass ceramics. A coupling agent such as silane is used to enhance the bond between resin matrix and filler particles. An initiator package[clarification needed] begins the polymerization reaction of the resins when external energy (light/heat, etc.) is applied. For example, camphorquinone can be excited by visible blue light with critical wavelength of 460-480 nm to yield necessary free radicals to start the process.
After tooth preparation, a thin primer or bonding agent is used. Modern photo-polymerised composites are applied and cured in relatively thin layers as determined by their opacity.[13] After some curing, the final surface will be shaped and polished.
Glass ionomer cement
[edit]A glass ionomer cement (GIC) is a class of materials commonly used in dentistry as direct filling materials and/or for luting indirect restorations. GIC can also be placed as a lining material in some restorations for extra protection. These tooth-coloured materials were introduced in 1972 for use as restorative materials for anterior teeth (particularly for eroded areas).[12]
The material consists of two main components: Liquid and powder. The liquid is the acidic component containing polyacrylic acid and tartaric acid (added to control the setting characteristics). The powder is the basic component consisting of sodium alumino-silicate glass.[14] The desirable properties of glass ionomer cements make them useful materials in the restoration of carious lesions in low-stress areas such as smooth-surface and small anterior proximal cavities in primary teeth.
Advantages of using glass ionomer cement:[12]
- The addition of tartaric acid to GIC leads to a shortened setting time, hence providing better handling properties. This makes it easier for the operator to use the material in clinic.
- GIC does not require bond, it can bond to enamel and dentine without the need for use of an intermediate material. Conventional GIC also has a good sealing ability providing little leakage around restoration margins and reducing the risk of secondary caries.
- GIC contains and releases fluoride after being placed therefore it helps in preventing carious lesions in teeth.
- It has good thermal properties as the expansion under stimulus is similar to dentine.
- The material does not contract on setting meaning it is not subject to shrinkage and microleakage.
- GIC is also less susceptible to staining and colour change than composite.
Disadvantages of using Glass ionomer cement:[12]
- GIC have poor wear resistance, they are usually weak after setting and are not stable in water however this improves when time goes on and progression reactions take place. Due to their low strength GICs are not appropriate to be placed in cavities in areas which bear an increase amount of occlusal load or wear.
- The material is susceptible to moisture when it is first placed.
- GIC varies in translucency therefore it can have poor aesthetics, especially noticeable if placed on anterior teeth.
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer
Resin modified glass ionomer was developed to combine the properties of glass ionomer cement with composite technology. It comes in a powder-liquid form. The powder contains fluro-alumino-silicate glass, barium glass (provides radiopacity), potassium persulphate (a redox catalyst to provide resin cure in the dark) and other components such as pigments. The liquid consists of HEMA (water miscible resin), polyacrylic acid (with pendant methacrylate groups) and tartaric acid. This can undergo both acid base and polymerisation reactions. It also has photoinitiators present which enable light curing.[14]
The ionomer has a number of uses in dentistry. It can be applied as fissure sealant, placed in endodontic access cavity as a temporary filling and a luting agent. It can also be used to restore lesions in both primary and permanent dentition. They are easier to use and are a very popular group of materials.
Advantages of using RMGIC:[12]
- Provides a good bond to enamel and dentine.
- It has better physical properties than GIC.
- A Lower solubility in moisture.
- It also releases fluoride over time.
- Provided better translucency and aesthetics as compared to GIC.
- Better handling properties making it easier to use.
Disadvantages of using RMGIC:[12]
- Polymerisation Contraction can cause microleakage around restoration margins
- It has an exothermic setting reaction which can cause potential damage to tooth tissue.
- The material swells due to uptake of water as HEMA is extremely hydrophilic.
- Monomer leaching : HEMA is toxic to the pulp therefore it must be polymerised completely.
- The strength of the material reduces if its not light-cured.
GIC and RMGIC are used in dentistry, there will be times when one of these materials is better than the other but that is dependent upon the clinical situation. However, in most cases the ease of use is deciding factor.
Compomer
[edit]Dental compomers are another type of white filling material although their use is not as widespread.[15][16][17]
Compomers were formed by modifying dental composites with poly-acid in an effort to combine the desirable properties of dental composites, namely their good aesthetics, and glass ionomer cements, namely their ability to release fluoride over a long time. Whilst this combination of good aesthetics and fluoride release may seem to give compomers a selective advantage, their poor mechanical properties (detailed below) limits their use.[15][16][17]
Compomers have a lower wear resistance and a lower compressive, flexural and tensile strength than dental composites, although their wear resistance is greater than resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cements.[15][16] Compomers cannot adhere directly to tooth tissue like glass ionomer cements; they require a bonding agent like dental composites.[15][16][17]
Compomers may be used as a cavity lining material and a restorative material for non-load bearing cavities.[15][16] In Paediatric dentistry, they can also be used as a fissure sealant material.[17]
The luting version of compomer may be used to cement cast alloy and ceramic-metal restorations, and to cement orthodontic bands in Paediatric patients.[16][17] However, compomer luting cement should not be used with all-ceramic crowns.[15][16]
Porcelain (ceramics)
[edit]
Full-porcelain dental materials include dental porcelain (porcelain meaning a high-firing-temperature ceramic), other ceramics, sintered-glass materials, and glass-ceramics as indirect fillings and crowns or metal-free "jacket crowns". They are also used as inlays, onlays, and aesthetic veneers. A veneer is a very thin shell of porcelain that can replace or cover part of the enamel of the tooth. Full-porcelain restorations are particularly desirable because their color and translucency mimic natural tooth enamel.
Another type is known as porcelain-fused-to-metal, which is used to provide strength to a crown or bridge. These restorations are very strong, durable and resistant to wear, because the combination of porcelain and metal creates a stronger restoration than porcelain used alone.
One of the advantages of computerized dentistry (CAD/CAM technologies) involves the use of machinable ceramics which are sold in a partially sintered, machinable state that is fired again after machining to form a hard ceramic.[18] Some of the materials used are glass-bonded porcelain (Vitablock), lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (a ceramic crystallizing from a glass by special heat treatment), and phase stabilized zirconia (zirconium dioxide, ZrO2). Previous attempts to utilize high-performance ceramics such as zirconium-oxide were thwarted by the fact that this material could not be processed using the traditional methods used in dentistry. Because of its high strength and comparatively much higher fracture toughness, sintered zirconium oxide can be used in posterior crowns and bridges, implant abutments, and root dowel pins. Lithium disilicate (used in the latest Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics CEREC product) also has the fracture resistance needed for use on molars.[19] Some all-ceramic restorations, such as porcelain-fused-to-alumina set the standard for high aesthetics in dentistry because they are strong and their color and translucency mimic natural tooth enamel.
Cast metals and porcelain-on-metal were the standard material for crowns and bridges for long time. The full ceramic restorations are now the major choice of patients and are of commonly applied by dentists.
Comparison
[edit]- Composites and amalgam are used mainly for direct restoration. Composites can be made of color matching the tooth, and the surface can be polished after the filling procedure has been completed.
- Amalgam fillings expand with age, possibly cracking the tooth and requiring repair and filling replacement, but chance of leakage of filling is less.
- Composite fillings shrink with age and may pull away from the tooth allowing leakage. If leakage is not noticed early, recurrent decay may occur.
- A 2003 study showed that fillings have a finite lifespan: an average of 12.8 years for amalgam and 7.8 years for composite resins.[20] Fillings fail because of changes in the filling, tooth or the bond between them. Secondary cavity formation can also affect the structural integrity the original filling. Fillings are recommended for small to medium-sized restorations.
- Inlays and onlays are more expensive indirect restoration alternative to direct fillings. They are supposed to be more durable, but long-term studies did not always detect a significantly lower failure rate of ceramic[21] or composite[22] inlays compared to composite direct fillings.
- Porcelain, cobalt-chrome, and gold are used for indirect restorations like crowns and partial coverage crowns (onlays). Traditional porcelains are brittle and are not always recommended for molar restorations. Some hard porcelains cause excessive wear on opposing teeth.
Experimental
[edit]The US National Institute of Dental Research and international organizations as well as commercial suppliers conduct research on new materials. In 2010, researchers reported that they were able to stimulate mineralization of an enamel-like layer of fluorapatite in vivo.[23] Filling material that is compatible with pulp tissue has been developed; it could be used where previously a root canal or extraction was required, according to 2016 reports.[24]
Restoration using dental implants
[edit]Dental implants are anchors placed in bone, usually made from titanium or titanium alloy. They can support dental restorations which replace missing teeth. Some restorative applications include supporting crowns, bridges, or dental prostheses.
Complications
[edit]Irritation of the nerve
[edit]When a deep cavity had been filled, there is a possibility that the nerve may have been irritated.[citation needed] This can result in short term sensitivity to cold and hot substances, and pain when biting down on the specific tooth. It may settle down on its own. If not, then alternative treatment such as root canal treatment may be considered to resolve the pain while keeping the tooth.
Weakening of tooth structure
[edit]In situations where a relatively larger amount of tooth structure has been lost or replaced with a filling material, the overall strength of the tooth may be affected. This significantly increases the risk of the tooth fracturing off in the future when excess force is placed on the tooth, such as trauma or grinding teeth at night, leading to cracked tooth syndrome.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Your Teeth and Cavities". WebMD. Retrieved 2017-05-04.
- ^ Oxilia, Gregorio; Fiorillo, Flavia; Boschin, Francesco; Boaretto, Elisabetta; Apicella, Salvatore A.; Matteucci, Chiara; Panetta, Daniele; Pistocchi, Rossella; Guerrini, Franca; Margherita, Cristiana; Andretta, Massimo; Sorrentino, Rita; Boschian, Giovanni; Arrighi, Simona; Dori, Irene (2017). "The dawn of dentistry in the late upper Paleolithic: An early case of pathological intervention at Riparo Fredian". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 163 (3): 446–461. Bibcode:2017AJPA..163..446O. doi:10.1002/ajpa.23216. hdl:11585/600517. ISSN 0002-9483. PMID 28345756.
- ^ Bernardini, Federico; Tuniz, Claudio; Coppa, Alfredo; Mancini, Lucia; Dreossi, Diego; Eichert, Diane; Turco, Gianluca; Biasotto, Matteo; Terrasi, Filippo; Cesare, Nicola De; Hua, Quan; Levchenko, Vladimir (2012-09-19). "Beeswax as Dental Filling on a Neolithic Human Tooth". PLOS ONE. 7 (9) e44904. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...744904B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044904. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3446997. PMID 23028670.
- ^ Nicklisch, Nicole; Knipper, Corina; Nehlich, Olaf; Held, Petra; Roßbach, Anne; Klein, Sabine; Schwab, Roland; Häger, Tobias; Wolf, Martin; Enzmann, Frieder; Birkenhagen, Bettina; Alt, Kurt W. (2019). "A Roman-period Dental Filling Made of a Hard Tissue Compound? Bioarchaeological and Medical-historical Investigations Carried out on a Roman-period Burial from Oberleuken-Perl (Lkr. Merzig-Wadern / D)". Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 49 (3): 371–391. doi:10.11588/ak.2019.3.78027. ISSN 2364-4729.
- ^ a b Innes, N.P.T.; Frencken, J.E.; Bjørndal, L.; Maltz, M.; Manton, D.J.; Ricketts, D.; Van Landuyt, K.; Banerjee, A.; Campus, G.; Doméjean, S.; Fontana, M. (2016). "Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology". Advances in Dental Research. 28 (2): 49–57. doi:10.1177/0022034516639276. hdl:10722/225603. ISSN 0895-9374. PMID 27099357. S2CID 10553555.
- ^ Schwendicke, F.; Frencken, J.E.; Bjørndal, L.; Maltz, M.; Manton, D.J.; Ricketts, D.; Van Landuyt, K.; Banerjee, A.; Campus, G.; Doméjean, S.; Fontana, M. (2016). "Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Carious Tissue Removal". Advances in Dental Research. 28 (2): 58–67. doi:10.1177/0022034516639271. ISSN 0895-9374. PMID 27099358. S2CID 34262818.
- ^ Schwendicke, Falk; Walsh, Tanya; Lamont, Thomas; Al-yaseen, Waraf; Bjørndal, Lars; Clarkson, Janet E; Fontana, Margherita; Gomez Rossi, Jesus; Göstemeyer, Gerd; Levey, Colin; Müller, Anne (2021-07-19). "Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021 (7) CD013039. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013039.pub2. ISSN 1465-1858. PMC 8406990. PMID 34280957.
- ^ Bailey, Oliver (2021). "Sectional matrix solutions: The distorted truth". Br Dent J. 231 (9): 547–555. doi:10.1038/s41415-021-3608-5. PMC 8589656. PMID 34773017. S2CID 244076477.
- ^ TCT magazine, "WorkNC Dental at the "CAD/CAM and Rapid Prototyping in Dental Technology" conference"
- ^ "G. V. Black Classification of Carious Lesions". Archived from the original on 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2007-12-19.
- ^ Mount, Graham J.; Bds, W. Rory Hume (1998). "A new cavity classification". Australian Dental Journal. 43 (3): 153–159. doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.1998.tb00156.x. ISSN 1834-7819. PMID 9707777.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k F.McCabe, John; W.G.Walls, Angus (2008). Applied Dental Materials. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 197–198. ISBN 978-1-4051-3961-8.
- ^ Canadian Dental Association, Tooth-coloured fillings
- ^ a b Martins, Ricardo Tome (2013-06-02). "A clinical guide to applied dental materials 1st edn.A Clinical Guide to Applied Dental Materials 1st edn. By Stephen J Bonsor and Gavin Pearson. Oxford: Churchill Livingstone, 2012 (464pp; £44.99). ISBN 978-0-7020-3158-8". Dental Update. 40 (5): 418. doi:10.12968/denu.2013.40.5.418. ISSN 0305-5000.
- ^ a b c d e f Noort, Richard van. (2013). Introduction to dental materials (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Mosby Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-7234-3659-1. OCLC 821697096.
- ^ a b c d e f g Powers, John M., 1946- (2016-01-25). Dental materials: foundations and applications. Wataha, John C.,, Chen, Yen-Wei (11 ed.). St. Louis, Missouri. ISBN 978-0-323-31637-8. OCLC 925266398.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c d e Nicholson, John W.; Swift, Edward J. (February 2008). "COMPOMERS". Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 20 (1): 3–4. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00141.x. ISSN 1496-4155. PMID 18237333.
- ^ Kastyl, Jaroslav; Chlup, Zdenek; Stastny, Premysl; Trunec, Martin (2020-08-17). "Machinability and properties of zirconia ceramics prepared by gelcasting method". Advances in Applied Ceramics. 119 (5–6): 252–260. Bibcode:2020AdApC.119..252K. doi:10.1080/17436753.2019.1675402. hdl:11012/181089. ISSN 1743-6753. S2CID 210795876.
- ^ Christian F.J. Stappert, Wael Att, Thomas Gerds, and Joerg R. Strub Fracture resistance of different partial-coverage ceramic molar restorations: An in vitro investigation J Am Dent Assoc 2006 137: 514-522.
- ^ Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003). "Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth". Journal of Dentistry. 31 (6): 395–405. doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00084-8. PMID 12878022. S2CID 24774674.
The present prospective, longitudinal study assessed the outcome of posterior extensive restorations and identified risk factors for failure of the restorations. ... The Kaplan–Meier median survival times were 12.8 years for amalgam restorations, 7.8 years for resin restorations, and more than 14.6 years for crowns, considering all retreatment as failures (P=0.002).
- ^ Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.; (2009); RT Lange, P Pfeiffer; Oper Dent. May-Jun;34(3):263-72. doi:10.2341/08-95
- ^ Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation.; U Pallesen, V Qvist; (2003) Clin Oral Invest 7:71–79 doi:10.1007/s00784-003-0201-z Conclusion:.." Considering the more invasive cavity preparation and the higher cost of restorations made by the inlay technique, this study indicates that resin fillings in most cases should be preferred over resin inlays."
- ^ Guentsch, Arndt; Busch, Susanne; Seidler, Karin; Kraft, Ulrike; Nietzsche, Sandor; Preshaw, Philip M.; Chromik, Julia N.; Glockmann, Eike; Jandt, Klaus D.; Sigusch, Bernd W. (2010). "Biomimetic Mineralization: Effects on Human Enamel in Vivo". Advanced Engineering Materials. 12 (9): B571 – B576. doi:10.1002/adem.201080008. S2CID 137647259.
- ^ "Fillings that heal your teeth – how regenerative medicine could change your visit to the dentist - The University of Nottingham". www.nottingham.ac.uk.
External links
[edit]Dental restoration
View on GrokipediaHistorical Development
Pre-20th Century Practices
The earliest evidence of dental restoration appears in prehistoric contexts, with approximately 13,000-year-old molars from a Late Upper Paleolithic individual in northern Italy showing bitumen-based fillings mixed with hair or plant fibers to occlude carious lesions and prevent further decay.[9] Similarly, a 6,500-year-old Neolithic canine tooth from Slovenia preserved traces of beeswax used as a filling material, indicating deliberate intervention to manage dental caries through sealing defects.[10] These findings suggest early human awareness of tooth pathology and basic attempts at remediation using available natural substances, though durability and biocompatibility were limited by material properties. In ancient civilizations, restorations shifted toward metallic elements for greater permanence. Etruscans, from roughly 700 to 300 BCE, crafted gold bands to bind loose or displaced teeth, functioning as rudimentary splints or prostheses to maintain occlusal function.[11] Romans adopted comparable techniques, employing gold wire to secure dentition and occasionally fabricating partial prostheses, as evidenced by artifacts from imperial-era necropolises.[12] Gold's use in dentistry dates back over 2,500 years, prized for its malleability, corrosion resistance, and biocompatibility, though applications were confined to elite contexts due to cost and craftsmanship demands.[13] Medieval and early modern periods saw sporadic advancements, including amalgam's introduction in Tang Dynasty China around 659 AD, where silver-tin-mercury mixtures served as fillings for decayed teeth.[14] In Europe, amalgam appeared by 1528 but remained marginal amid preferences for extraction over preservation. Gold continued as a primary material for fillings and bridges, hammered into foil for cavity adaptation, though techniques lacked standardization and often prioritized aesthetics over infection control. By the 19th century, restorations evolved with systematic material refinement. Amalgam fillings proliferated after French dentist Auguste Taveau's 1816 formulation using silver and mercury, reaching the United States by the 1830s, yet sparked the "amalgam war" in the 1840s as gold proponents decried its expansion and potential toxicity.[15] Concurrently, American dentist Robert Arthur developed the cohesive gold foil method in 1855, enabling dentists to condense pure gold pellets into cavities under low pressure for dense, long-lasting seals without alloying.[16] These practices emphasized mechanical retention over biological principles, with cavity preparations rudimentary and reliant on hand instruments, reflecting dentistry's transition from artisanal to proto-professional status.[17]20th Century Innovations
In the early 20th century, operative dentistry was formalized through the work of Greene Vardiman Black, who published A Work on Operative Dentistry in 1908, establishing systematic cavity classifications and preparation principles that emphasized caries removal and prevention of recurrence through extensions into unaffected tooth structure.[18] These guidelines dominated restorative practices for decades, promoting durable amalgam fillings as the standard for posterior teeth due to their longevity, with clinical studies later reporting survival rates exceeding 90% over 10 years in many cases.[19] Concurrently, Charles H. Land patented the porcelain jacket crown in 1903, an all-ceramic restoration that provided aesthetic coverage for anterior teeth by fusing porcelain over a platinum base, though limited by brittleness and requiring extensive tooth reduction.[19] Mid-century innovations shifted toward synthetic polymers, with acrylic resins initially adapted from denture materials for provisional restorations post-World War II, offering easier manipulation than metals but prone to polymerization shrinkage and wear.[4] A pivotal development occurred in 1955 when Rafael Bowen synthesized BIS-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate), the foundational resin for modern composites, enabling the creation of filled restorative materials that bonded to etched enamel via micromechanical retention, as demonstrated in early experiments showing improved marginal adaptation.[20] Commercial composite resins, such as Adaptic introduced in 1969, replaced silicates for anterior restorations, providing better polishability and reduced solubility, though initial formulations exhibited polymerization contraction up to 5% by volume, contributing to postoperative sensitivity in 10-20% of cases.[21] Adhesive bonding techniques advanced significantly from the 1950s onward, with Oskar Hagger's 1949 patent for dentin bonding using glycerophosphoric acid enabling retention of acrylic fillings without mechanical undercuts, though clinical efficacy was limited by hydrolysis.[22] By the 1970s, etch-and-rinse systems incorporating phosphoric acid preconditioning of enamel and dentin, coupled with hydrophilic primers, achieved bond strengths exceeding 20 MPa, facilitating conservative preparations and indirect restorations like porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns, which combined metal substructures with veneering porcelain for enhanced durability and aesthetics, with long-term success rates around 85% at 10 years.[23] These developments reduced the need for aggressive tooth cutting, aligning with emerging minimal intervention paradigms, while glass ionomer cements, invented in 1969 by Alan Wilson, introduced fluoride-releasing properties for anticariogenic effects in Class V restorations.[24]Post-2000 Advances
The integration of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems into restorative dentistry accelerated after 2000, enabling chairside fabrication of crowns, inlays, and onlays with reduced laboratory involvement and improved precision. Systems like CEREC evolved with enhanced scanning and milling capabilities, allowing single-visit restorations using blocks of ceramic or composite materials, which minimized patient discomfort and appointment times compared to traditional methods.[25] By the mid-2010s, CAD/CAM adoption in clinical practice had increased efficiency, with studies reporting marginal adaptation accuracies rivaling or surpassing conventional techniques.[26] Nanotechnology transformed direct composite restorations starting in the early 2000s, with nanofilled resins incorporating particles under 100 nm to achieve superior polishability, wear resistance, and esthetic matching to natural tooth structure. These materials, such as those with silica or zirconia nanoparticles, demonstrated flexural strengths exceeding 150 MPa in vitro, reducing polymerization shrinkage and enhancing longevity over microfilled predecessors.[27] Clinical trials post-2005 confirmed lower discoloration rates and better gingival health with nanofilled composites versus hybrids.[28] Advances in all-ceramic materials, particularly zirconia-stabilized frameworks and lithium disilicate, addressed fracture limitations of earlier porcelains, with post-2000 formulations yielding flexural strengths up to 400-500 MPa for monolithic crowns suitable for posterior teeth. These developments, driven by improved sintering techniques, reduced opposing tooth wear through smoother surfaces and allowed for adhesive cementation without metal substructures, enhancing biocompatibility.[29] Long-term survival rates for lithium disilicate restorations reached 95% at 5 years in prospective studies.[30] Three-dimensional printing technologies, building on stereolithography and digital light processing, gained traction in dental labs around 2010 for fabricating models and surgical guides, evolving by the late 2010s to produce provisional restorations and custom trays with layer resolutions below 50 microns. This additive approach complemented subtractive CAD/CAM by enabling complex geometries unattainable via milling, though material biocompatibility remains a focus for permanent restorations.[31] Minimally invasive techniques, including air abrasion and laser-assisted cavity preparation, emerged prominently post-2000 to preserve tooth structure, with erbium lasers demonstrating caries removal efficacy comparable to rotary instruments while reducing pulpal thermal damage. These methods align with evidence that smaller preparations correlate with higher restoration retention rates, often exceeding 90% at 3 years.[32] Exploratory regenerative strategies, such as bioactive glass-containing composites that promote remineralization, entered clinical evaluation around 2010, releasing ions to form apatite-like layers and potentially arresting early caries without full replacement. However, widespread adoption awaits larger randomized trials confirming superiority over conventional fillings in halting lesion progression.[33]Clinical Indications and Classification
Pathophysiology Requiring Restoration
Dental caries, the most common indication for restoration, arises from a microbial imbalance where cariogenic bacteria, primarily Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus species, adhere to the tooth surface and ferment dietary carbohydrates into organic acids, predominantly lactic acid, lowering the oral pH below the critical threshold of 5.5 and initiating subsurface demineralization of enamel hydroxyapatite.[34] This process progresses if unchecked, transitioning from reversible early enamel lesions to irreversible cavitation involving dentin, where bacterial invasion exacerbates tissue breakdown via proteolytic enzymes and further acid production, often necessitating restorative intervention to halt progression, restore function, and prevent pulpal involvement.[34] In advanced cases, untreated caries can lead to pulpitis or abscess formation due to inflammatory responses from bacterial byproducts diffusing through dentinal tubules.[35] Non-carious tooth substance loss, including erosion, abrasion, and attrition, also mandates restoration when structural integrity is compromised, exposing dentin and causing hypersensitivity or functional deficits. Erosion involves chemical dissolution of enamel and dentin by extrinsic acids from dietary sources (e.g., citric acid in beverages) or intrinsic sources (e.g., gastric reflux), independent of bacterial activity, with demineralization occurring at pH levels as low as 2-4, particularly affecting palatal surfaces of anterior teeth or occlusal fissures.[36] Abrasion results from mechanical wear by external agents like aggressive toothbrushing or abrasive dentifrices, creating V-shaped notches at the cementoenamel junction, while attrition entails pathological tooth-to-tooth contact, often bruxism-related, flattening occlusal and incisal surfaces beyond physiological norms.[37] Combined multifactorial wear accelerates loss, requiring restorations such as composite build-ups or onlays to reestablish occlusal harmony and protect vital pulp.[38] Traumatic dental injuries, including crown fractures, disrupt tooth architecture through direct mechanical force, classified by Ellis systems where Class I-II involve enamel only or enamel-dentin exposure, eliciting acute pain from hydrodynamic theory-mediated dentin sensitivity via odontoblast activation and nerve fiber stimulation in tubules.[39] More severe crown-root fractures or vertical root fractures propagate cracks that compromise periodontal ligament integrity and risk pulpal necrosis from vascular disruption and bacterial ingress, often requiring fragment reattachment, provisional splinting, or full-coverage restorations post-endodontic therapy to maintain structural stability.[39] Incidence peaks in anterior teeth due to their prominence, with delayed treatment increasing resorption risks via inflammatory cascades involving osteoclast activation.[40] Developmental enamel defects, such as amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) or enamel hypoplasia, stem from genetic mutations disrupting ameloblast function, yielding thin, hypomineralized, or absent enamel layers prone to rapid attrition and fracture under masticatory loads.[41] In hypoplastic AI, quantitative enamel deficits arise from impaired matrix secretion, while hypocalcified variants feature soft, posteruptive loss, heightening caries susceptibility and necessitating early adhesive restorations or crowns to reinforce dentin and mitigate hypersensitivity from exposed tubules.[42] Dentinogenesis imperfecta, involving collagen defects in dentin, further obliges restorations to compensate for obliterated pulps and brittle structure, with untreated cases leading to rapid wear to gingival levels.[43]Classification Systems for Defects
The G.V. Black classification system, developed in the early 1900s, remains the foundational anatomical framework for categorizing carious defects based on their location on the tooth surface, guiding cavity preparation and restoration selection.[44] This system divides lesions into five primary classes (with a sixth added subsequently), emphasizing the need for specific restorative approaches to preserve tooth structure while addressing decay.[44] It prioritizes mechanical removal of carious tissue and restoration of form and function, reflecting the era's focus on operative dentistry.[45]| Class | Location of Defect | Typical Restorative Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| I | Pits and fissures on occlusal surfaces of molars/premolars, buccal/lingual pits of molars, or lingual pits of maxillary incisors | Amalgam or composite fillings; focuses on sealing fissures to prevent progression.[46] |
| II | Proximal surfaces of posterior teeth (molars/premolars), involving contact areas | Requires matrix bands for Class II restorations; often indirect if extensive.[46] |
| III | Proximal surfaces of anterior teeth (incisors/canines), not involving incisal edge | Conservative Class III composites; preserves esthetics.[46] |
| IV | Proximal surfaces of anterior teeth involving the incisal edge | More invasive; may require veneers or crowns for strength and appearance.[46] |
| V | Cervical third of facial or lingual surfaces (any tooth) | Class V restorations; often for root caries or erosion at gingival margin.[46] |
| VI | Cusp tips of posterior teeth (added post-Black) | Typically requires onlays or crowns due to structural compromise.[45] |
Tooth Preparation
Principles of Cavity Design
The principles of cavity design in dental restorations originated with Greene Vardiman Black's work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasizing mechanical and biologic considerations to ensure restoration longevity and tooth preservation. Black's framework includes four primary forms: outline, resistance, retention, and convenience, which guide the removal of diseased tissue while preparing the tooth to support the restorative material against occlusal forces.[49] These principles prioritize complete caries excavation, adequate material bulk for strength, and marginal integrity to prevent recurrent decay.[50] Outline form defines the external configuration of the preparation, extending to sound tooth structure beyond the caries extent, typically 1.5 to 2 mm from the dentinoenamel junction to include fissures prone to future decay.[51] This ensures access for instrumentation and complete debridement while minimizing enamel removal. Resistance form configures internal walls to distribute masticatory loads, featuring flat pulpal floors perpendicular to occlusal forces, rounded line angles to reduce stress concentrations, and sufficient dentin thickness—ideally 1.5 to 2 mm—for the restoration to fracture only under excessive force rather than the tooth.[51] [52] Retention form prevents restoration displacement under tangential forces, traditionally achieved through mechanical features like undercuts, dovetails, or grooves in amalgam preparations, providing at least 0.02 to 0.05 mm of taper for frictional hold.[52] Convenience form facilitates operator access, such as by increasing interproximal clearance or using matrix bands without compromising structural integrity.[51] In contemporary practice, adhesive bonding with composites reduces reliance on mechanical retention, allowing more conservative preparations that preserve enamel and dentin, though Black's resistance principles remain essential to avoid cusp flexure and fracture.[53] Cavity walls are finished to create a 90- to 110-degree cavosurface angle for optimal enamel rod support and marginal seal.[50]Minimal Intervention Techniques
Minimal intervention techniques in tooth preparation prioritize the preservation of healthy tooth structure by limiting the removal of enamel and dentin to only carious or defective areas, diverging from historical approaches that emphasized extensive cavity extensions for prevention and retention.[54] This paradigm, rooted in minimal intervention dentistry (MID), relies on accurate diagnosis of lesion extent using aids such as caries detectors, transillumination, and magnification to guide selective excavation, thereby reducing iatrogenic damage and pulp exposure risk.[55] [56] A core technique is selective caries removal, where infected dentin (soft, necrotic) is excavated to firm dentin, leaving affected dentin (harder, potentially remineralizable) overlying the pulp in deep lesions to avoid exposure.[57] Clinical guidelines recommend this for moderate-to-deep cavitated lesions in permanent teeth, as meta-analyses indicate it lowers pulp exposure rates (by up to 71% compared to complete removal) and root canal treatment needs without increasing secondary caries risk over 5-year follow-ups.[58] [59] Hand instruments, such as spoon excavators, are preferred for their tactile feedback in achieving this precision, often supplemented by chemomechanical agents like papain-based gels to soften and dissolve carious tissue selectively.[56] Alternative preparation methods include air abrasion, which uses aluminum oxide particles propelled by compressed air to abrade only decayed tissue with minimal heat and vibration, enabling cavity shapes that enhance adhesive retention without mechanical undercuts.[60] Lasers, such as Er:YAG, facilitate photoablation of caries with reduced need for anesthesia and enamel cracking, though their efficacy depends on wavelength and water cooling to prevent thermal pulp damage; studies report comparable outcomes to rotary instrumentation in shallow preparations but higher costs.[56] Ozone therapy applies gaseous ozone to disinfect and arrest early lesions or residual bacteria post-excavation, supporting non-restorative management in pits and fissures.[61] These techniques align with evidence-based policies from bodies like the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, which endorse MID to delay invasive restorations and maintain tooth vitality, with long-term case reports demonstrating success up to 21 years via selective removal in molars.[62] [63] Cavity designs avoid traditional dovetails or grooves, instead relying on adhesive bonding for retention, which preserves biomechanics and reduces fracture susceptibility in vital teeth.[54]Direct Restorations
Procedural Steps
The procedural steps for direct restorations commence after cavity preparation, focusing on material placement, adaptation, and finishing to restore tooth function and anatomy. Tooth isolation is essential, typically achieved using a rubber dam to maintain a dry field and prevent contamination, which improves bond strength and longevity for adhesive materials like composites.[64] For proximal restorations, a matrix band or section is placed to re-establish contact points and contour, followed by wedging to ensure tight adaptation.[65] For resin composite restorations, the process involves selective etching of enamel with 37% phosphoric acid gel for 15-30 seconds to create micromechanical retention, while dentin may use self-etch adhesives to minimize postoperative sensitivity; excess etchant is rinsed thoroughly, and the surface is dried without desiccating dentin. A bonding agent or universal adhesive is then applied, air-thinned, and light-polymerized for 10-20 seconds to form a hybrid layer. Composite is placed in 2 mm increments to reduce polymerization shrinkage stress, with each layer adapted using instruments and cured for 20-40 seconds from multiple angles using a 400-500 nm wavelength light at 800-1200 mW/cm² intensity.[66] [67] Contouring follows using multi-fluted carbide burs or diamonds to refine occlusal anatomy and interproximal embrasures, verified with articulating paper for proper occlusion. Final polishing employs sequential abrasive discs, cups, or pastes (e.g., 12-40 μm particles) to achieve a smooth surface that resists plaque accumulation and staining, typically lasting 5-10 minutes per restoration.[68] Amalgam placement differs, involving capsule trituration for 5-10 seconds to achieve a plastic consistency, followed by incremental insertion using a carrier and condenser to compact the material under 2-4 kg pressure, eliminating voids and achieving a 1-2 mm overfill for carving. Carving occurs immediately with instruments like Hollenback carvers to replicate cusps, grooves, and marginal ridges before initial set (3-5 minutes), succeeded by burnishing to densify margins. After 24 hours of hardening, polishing with pumice and a brush removes the oxygen-inhibited layer and enhances corrosion resistance.[69] [70] Glass ionomer cements require minimal preparation post-isolation, with mixing to a glossy consistency, placement via syringe or bulk, and initial setting for 2-3 minutes before trimming excess; no etching is needed due to chemical adhesion to tooth structure, though varnish may protect against early moisture. These steps prioritize material-specific properties to ensure durability, with success rates for composites exceeding 90% at 5 years under optimal conditions.[3]Clinical Applications and Outcomes
Direct restorations are clinically indicated for restoring structural defects in vital teeth, including carious lesions, fractures, and attritional wear, particularly in smaller cavities classified under systems like Black's (Classes I–III for composites and amalgam, with GICs suited for non-stress-bearing areas such as Class V erosions or primary teeth).[71] They are preferred over indirect methods for their single-visit efficiency, lower cost, and minimal tooth reduction, making them suitable for pediatric patients, high-caries-risk individuals, or when preserving tooth structure aligns with minimal intervention principles.[2] Composites excel in anterior esthetic demands due to their tooth-mimicking optical properties, while amalgam provides robust durability in posterior load-bearing sites, and glass ionomer cements (GICs) offer chemical adhesion and fluoride release beneficial for root caries or moisture-prone environments.[3] [72] Long-term outcomes demonstrate material-specific survival rates influenced by factors such as cavity size, isolation quality, oral hygiene, and operator experience. Amalgam restorations exhibit superior longevity, with annual failure rates of 0.16–2.83% and survival rates up to 94.4% over extended periods, primarily failing due to marginal wear rather than secondary caries.[73] [74] In contrast, direct composite resins show annual failure rates of 1–3%, with 5-year posterior survival around 86% in controlled settings, though extensive multi-surface restorations drop to 62% success after 13 years, often from fracture, debonding, or recurrent decay linked to polymerization shrinkage and technique sensitivity. Postoperative discomfort typically peaks in the first few days and improves within 1–2 weeks, with deeper fillings potentially taking longer as the nerve calms down.[75] It is common for restorations to feel high immediately after placement due to anesthesia effects, occlusal sensitivity to minor changes, or temporary inflammation; this sensation often resolves naturally within a day or few days via bite adaptation and settling, especially without pain. Persistent discomfort beyond a few days warrants dental consultation for possible occlusal adjustment.[76][77] Meta-analyses confirm composites have nearly double the failure rate of amalgam, particularly in posterior teeth, though they reduce sensitivity and food impaction risks when placed expertly.[74] [78] High-viscosity GICs achieve acceptable outcomes in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) or primary dentition, with 10-year success rates comparable to composites in Class I/II cavities (around 80–90%) and survival up to 100% in short-term proximal restorations, excelling in fluoride-mediated caries inhibition but prone to wear in high-occlusal-stress areas.[79] [80] Overall, direct restorations yield high patient satisfaction for function and aesthetics, but success hinges on case selection—reserving composites for low-risk, esthetic sites and amalgam/GIC for durability-focused scenarios—while secondary caries remains the predominant failure mode across materials, underscoring the need for rigorous preventive strategies.[81] [82]Indirect Restorations
Procedural Steps
The procedural steps for direct restorations commence after cavity preparation, focusing on material placement, adaptation, and finishing to restore tooth function and anatomy. Tooth isolation is essential, typically achieved using a rubber dam to maintain a dry field and prevent contamination, which improves bond strength and longevity for adhesive materials like composites.[64] For proximal restorations, a matrix band or section is placed to re-establish contact points and contour, followed by wedging to ensure tight adaptation.[65] For resin composite restorations, the process involves selective etching of enamel with 37% phosphoric acid gel for 15-30 seconds to create micromechanical retention, while dentin may use self-etch adhesives to minimize postoperative sensitivity; excess etchant is rinsed thoroughly, and the surface is dried without desiccating dentin. A bonding agent or universal adhesive is then applied, air-thinned, and light-polymerized for 10-20 seconds to form a hybrid layer. Composite is placed in 2 mm increments to reduce polymerization shrinkage stress, with each layer adapted using instruments and cured for 20-40 seconds from multiple angles using a 400-500 nm wavelength light at 800-1200 mW/cm² intensity.[66] [67] Contouring follows using multi-fluted carbide burs or diamonds to refine occlusal anatomy and interproximal embrasures, verified with articulating paper for proper occlusion. Final polishing employs sequential abrasive discs, cups, or pastes (e.g., 12-40 μm particles) to achieve a smooth surface that resists plaque accumulation and staining, typically lasting 5-10 minutes per restoration.[68] Amalgam placement differs, involving capsule trituration for 5-10 seconds to achieve a plastic consistency, followed by incremental insertion using a carrier and condenser to compact the material under 2-4 kg pressure, eliminating voids and achieving a 1-2 mm overfill for carving. Carving occurs immediately with instruments like Hollenback carvers to replicate cusps, grooves, and marginal ridges before initial set (3-5 minutes), succeeded by burnishing to densify margins. After 24 hours of hardening, polishing with pumice and a brush removes the oxygen-inhibited layer and enhances corrosion resistance.[69] [70] Glass ionomer cements require minimal preparation post-isolation, with mixing to a glossy consistency, placement via syringe or bulk, and initial setting for 2-3 minutes before trimming excess; no etching is needed due to chemical adhesion to tooth structure, though varnish may protect against early moisture. These steps prioritize material-specific properties to ensure durability, with success rates for composites exceeding 90% at 5 years under optimal conditions.[3]Types and Indications
Indirect restorations encompass lab-fabricated prostheses such as inlays, onlays, crowns, veneers, and bridges, designed to restore form, function, and esthetics while preserving tooth structure more conservatively than extensive extra-coronal coverage where possible.[83] These are indicated for defects exceeding the scope of direct fillings, particularly in posterior teeth prone to polymerization shrinkage issues with composites, or anterior regions demanding high esthetics.[84] Inlays are intracoronal restorations cemented within cavity preparations confined to the cusps, typically for Class I or II defects involving moderate to large lesions with enamel margins suitable for bonding.[83] Indications include esthetic zones requiring superior proximal contacts and contours over direct restorations, replacement of failed direct fillings, and cases where lesions span less than one-third the cuspal distance to avoid heavy occlusal loads.[83] They offer reduced shrinkage stress limited to luting cement and improved marginal integrity compared to direct composites, making them suitable for posterior teeth with sufficient remaining structure.[84] Onlays extend beyond inlays to encompass one or more cusps, providing extracoronal coverage for lesions involving cuspal heights or weakened enamel.[83] Clinical indications encompass small to moderate carious or traumatic defects, endodontically treated teeth lacking retention form, and preparations where cusp extension reaches two-thirds from groove to tip, enhancing fracture resistance over inlays.[83] Onlays are preferred for posterior restorations absorbing masticatory forces better than brittle ceramics, with applications in cracked teeth or larger cavities where direct techniques risk failure.[84] Crowns involve complete or partial extracoronal coverage of the clinical crown, indicated for severely compromised teeth with extensive structural loss, post-endodontic treatment weakening, or need for retention via encircling tooth walls.[83] They protect against fracture in badly broken-down dentition and restore vertical dimension or alignment, with materials selected for load-bearing areas like molars.[85] Full veneer crowns are specifically used to safeguard weakened cusps or restore form after substantial decay removal.[86] Veneers consist of thin facings bonded to the labial or buccal surfaces, primarily for anterior teeth with esthetic discrepancies, minor incisal edge wear, or interproximal cavities without deep preparation.[83] Indications include smile enhancement, masking discolorations or recession, and conservative coverage where full crowns would over-remove healthy tissue, often using ceramics for translucency matching natural dentition.[83][85] Bridges, or fixed partial dentures, replace one or more missing teeth by anchoring to abutments, indicated for bounded edentulous spans where removable prosthetics or implants are contraindicated due to patient factors or bone quality.[85] They restore occlusion and prevent drifting, with designs like conventional or resin-bonded suited to span length and abutment vitality, though requiring healthy supporting teeth.[85]Restorative Materials
Amalgam
Dental amalgam is a direct restorative material composed of approximately 50% elemental mercury mixed with a powdered alloy containing 20-35% silver, 12-30% tin, 2-15% copper, and trace amounts of zinc and indium.[69] The mixture forms a pliable paste that sets via a metallurgical reaction into a hard, durable solid suitable for load-bearing restorations, primarily in posterior teeth.[14] Introduced in the early 19th century, amalgam gained widespread use by the mid-1800s due to its mechanical reliability, supplanting earlier materials like gold foil for routine cavity fillings.[14] Placement involves preparing the cavity with undercuts for retention, triturating the pre-capsulated alloy and mercury in a mechanical mixer for 5-10 seconds to initiate amalgamation, then condensing the soft mass into the preparation using serrated condensers to achieve dense packing and minimize voids.[87] The restoration is carved to replicate occlusal anatomy with instruments like hatchet and cleoid-discoid, followed by immediate polishing after initial set to reduce corrosion and improve longevity; full hardening occurs within 24 hours.[14] Amalgam is indicated for moderate to large Class I and II cavities in molars and premolars subjected to high masticatory forces, where its compressive strength exceeding 300 MPa supports functional demands.[88] Advantages include low cost (often under $100 per restoration), ease of application with minimal equipment, and proven durability, with annual failure rates ranging from 0.16% to 2.83% and survival rates up to 94% over 5-10 years in clinical studies.[89] Meta-analyses indicate amalgam outperforms resin composites in reducing restoration failure risk by up to 54% in posterior teeth, attributed to superior wear resistance and edge strength.[90] [91] Disadvantages encompass poor esthetics due to its metallic silver appearance, potential for slight dimensional expansion causing postoperative sensitivity or fracture (mitigated in high-copper formulations), and rare allergic reactions in 1% of patients sensitive to mercury or alloy components.[87] [92] Regarding safety, amalgam releases low levels of mercury vapor (1-3 μg/day per restoration), but extensive reviews by the FDA and WHO conclude no causal link to systemic health effects in the general population, supported by randomized trials and epidemiological data showing no increased risk of neurological or renal issues.[93] [94] The FDA recommends alternatives for high-risk groups—including pregnant women, fetuses, children under 6, and individuals with neurological or kidney disorders—due to potential sensitivity in developing systems, though benefits often outweigh risks for most adults.[95] Claims of widespread toxicity from activist sources lack empirical substantiation and contradict peer-reviewed evidence affirming amalgam's safety profile when placed under controlled conditions.[93]Composite Resins
Composite resins are synthetic, tooth-colored restorative materials composed primarily of an organic polymer matrix, inorganic filler particles, and coupling agents that enable chemical bonding between the components. The resin matrix typically consists of dimethacrylate monomers such as bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) or urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), which provide viscosity and handling properties, while fillers like silica or quartz (comprising 40-80% by volume) enhance mechanical strength, radiopacity, and wear resistance. Silane coupling agents facilitate adhesion between the resin and fillers, and photoinitiators such as camphorquinone allow light-activated polymerization.[96] Development of composite resins began in the mid-20th century as an alternative to silicate cements and early unfilled acrylics, which suffered from poor durability and aesthetics. In the 1940s, researcher Rafael Bowen pioneered resin-filler composites using Bis-GMA formulations, leading to the first commercial products in the 1960s and widespread adoption in the 1970s with hybrid composites like Adaptic and Concise, which improved filler loading and reduced polymerization issues. Advancements continued into the 21st century with nanofilled and bulk-fill variants to minimize shrinkage stress and enhance depth of cure.[4][97] Key physical properties include flexural strength ranging from 100-150 MPa and elastic modulus of 10-20 GPa, comparable to dentin but inferior to enamel, enabling conservative cavity preparations. However, polymerization shrinkage of 1.5-3% by volume generates internal stresses up to 5-20 MPa, potentially causing marginal gaps, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries if bonding fails. Modern low-shrinkage formulations, such as silorane-based or ring-opening monomers, reduce this to under 1.5%, though they remain technique-sensitive due to oxygen inhibition at surfaces and the need for incremental placement.[96][98][99] Clinically, composites are indicated for direct restorations in anterior and posterior teeth, veneers, and repairs, bonding via acid-etch and adhesive systems to enamel and dentin for micromechanical retention. Advantages include superior aesthetics matching natural tooth shade and translucency, minimal tooth structure removal, and fluoride-releasing variants for caries prevention. Disadvantages encompass lower wear resistance in high-load posterior areas, susceptibility to staining and discoloration over time, and higher cost and placement time compared to amalgam.[3][100] Long-term survival rates vary by location and operator skill; anterior restorations achieve 88% survival at 2-10 years, while posterior ones range from 80-90% at 5 years but decline faster due to fracture and caries, with annual failure rates of 1-3% versus amalgam's lower rates. Systematic reviews indicate median survival of 5-11 years for composites versus over 16 years for amalgam in permanent molars, attributing differences to shrinkage-induced debonding rather than inherent material flaws, though patient factors like oral hygiene confound results.[101][102][103]Glass Ionomer Cements
Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are acid-base reaction products used in dental restorations, comprising a reactive glass powder—typically fluoroaluminosilicate—and an aqueous solution of polyacrylic acid copolymers.[104] The setting occurs through an acid-base reaction where protons from the polyacid attack the glass, releasing metal cations that cross-link the polyacid chains, forming a polysalt matrix with unreacted glass particles embedded for reinforcement.[105] This matrix enables chemical adhesion to tooth structure via ion exchange at the interface, where calcium and phosphate from hydroxyapatite in enamel and dentin replace hydrogen ions from the cement, creating an ionic bond without requiring undercuts or adhesives.[104] GICs exhibit sustained fluoride release, initially through surface diffusion and short-term acid dissolution of the glass, followed by longer-term matrix diffusion, with the capacity for recharge from external fluoride sources like toothpaste or varnishes.[106] This cariostatic effect reduces adjacent lesion development, particularly beneficial in high-caries-risk patients, as evidenced by clinical trials showing lower secondary caries incidence compared to non-fluoride-releasing materials.[107] However, mechanical properties are limited: compressive strength ranges from 100-200 MPa, flexural strength 20-50 MPa, and they demonstrate higher wear rates and brittleness under occlusal loads, restricting use to low-stress areas.[108] Early moisture contamination can disrupt setting, necessitating protective varnishes or liners post-placement.[104] In clinical practice, conventional GICs suit atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) for occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth and non-load-bearing permanent tooth sites like Class V erosions or root caries, with survival rates of 81-97% at 6-24 months in elderly populations using ART.[109] Resin-modified variants (RMGICs) incorporate light-curable monomers for dual setting, improving strength (compressive up to 150-250 MPa) and reducing moisture sensitivity, extending applications to moderate-stress restorations.[110] High-viscosity GICs, with reduced powder-liquid ratios, enhance packability for larger cavities but show higher 36-month failure rates in some reviews compared to compomers.[111] Longevity data from systematic reviews indicate median survival of 30-42 months for permanent tooth GIC restorations, with annual failure rates of 3-10% overall, rising to 10-30% for Class II placements due to fracture and marginal breakdown.[112] [113] In primary dentition, survival exceeds 93% over the tooth's lifespan, supporting their use in pediatric dentistry.[114] RMGICs demonstrate superior durability in older adults, outperforming conventional types in longevity metrics.[110] Despite these limitations, GICs' biocompatibility and fluoride benefits make them viable for minimally invasive approaches, though they underperform composites or amalgam in high-load posterior restorations per meta-analyses.[115]Ceramic and Porcelain Materials
Ceramic materials, encompassing porcelain and advanced glass- and polycrystalline variants, are utilized in indirect dental restorations for their ability to replicate the optical properties of natural teeth while offering biocompatibility and chemical stability.[116] Porcelain primarily denotes feldspathic or leucite-reinforced glass ceramics, characterized by a silica-based matrix, whereas reinforced types like lithium disilicate and zirconia provide enhanced mechanical performance through crystalline phases.[117] These materials are fabricated via methods such as CAD/CAM milling, heat-pressing, or sintering, enabling precise customization for crowns, veneers, inlays, onlays, and bridges.[85] Key types include feldspathic porcelain, with flexural strength of 50-120 MPa, suited for thin veneers due to its high translucency but limited by brittleness; leucite-reinforced glass ceramics, offering 120-160 MPa strength for anterior restorations; lithium disilicate, achieving 250-400 MPa for versatile anterior and posterior use; and zirconia, with 900-1400 MPa flexural strength for high-load applications.[116] [85] Fracture toughness varies correspondingly, from 1.4 MPa·m¹/² in feldspathic to over 5 MPa·m¹/² in zirconia, influencing resistance to crack propagation under occlusal forces.[117]| Material Type | Flexural Strength (MPa) | Primary Indications | Key Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feldspathic Porcelain | 50-120 | Veneers, anterior inlays | High fracture risk |
| Leucite-Reinforced | 120-160 | Anterior crowns, veneers | Limited posterior use |
| Lithium Disilicate | 250-400 | Crowns, bridges, veneers | Potential opposing wear |
| Zirconia | 900-1400 | Posterior crowns, frameworks | Reduced translucency |
Metallic Alloys and Gold
Gold alloys have been utilized in dentistry for over a century, primarily for indirect restorations such as inlays, onlays, and full crowns, due to their superior mechanical properties and biocompatibility.[118] These alloys are classified into types I through IV based on hardness and proportional limit, with Type III and IV commonly employed for crown and bridge applications requiring higher strength.[119] High-noble gold alloys typically contain at least 40% gold along with platinum, palladium, silver, and copper, providing excellent corrosion resistance and a coefficient of thermal expansion closely matching that of tooth structure.[120] The durability of gold restorations stems from their high tensile strength, resistance to fracture, and minimal wear at margins, making them suitable for high-load posterior regions.[121] Clinical studies report survival rates exceeding 90% at 10 years and up to 96% for indirect gold restorations, outperforming many alternatives in longevity.[122] Gold's biocompatibility minimizes inflammatory responses, with rare allergic reactions compared to base metals, though aesthetic limitations restrict use to non-visible areas and higher costs arise from precious metal content.[123][124] Beyond gold-based alloys, non-precious metallic alloys serve as cost-effective alternatives for frameworks in crowns, bridges, and removable partial dentures.[125] Base metal alloys, including cobalt-chromium (e.g., Vitallium with ~60% Co and 30% Cr) and nickel-chromium compositions, offer high strength-to-weight ratios and rigidity but require precise casting to avoid porosity.[126] Titanium alloys, such as Ti-6Al-4V, provide enhanced biocompatibility and lower modulus of elasticity approximating bone, used in implant-supported frameworks despite higher processing costs.[85] These alloys exhibit variable corrosion resistance in oral environments, with potential for nickel-induced hypersensitivity affecting 10-20% of patients, necessitating hypoallergenic options like titanium.[127][128] In porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations, metallic alloys form the substructure, with noble alloys preferred for their oxide layer control to ensure bond strength without discoloration of the porcelain veneer.[129] Base metal alloys in such applications must undergo biocompatibility testing per FDA guidelines, including cytotoxicity and sensitization assays, to mitigate risks of intraoral reactions.[130] Overall, while gold alloys remain the benchmark for longevity and tissue compatibility, base metal variants expand accessibility, balanced against biocompatibility concerns evidenced in clinical and laboratory evaluations.Emerging Bioactive Materials
Bioactive materials in dental restorations represent a shift toward formulations that actively interact with the oral environment, releasing ions such as calcium, phosphate, and silicate to facilitate remineralization and apatite layer formation on tooth surfaces.[131] Unlike traditional inert restoratives, these materials promote biological responses, including dentin tubule occlusion and reduced bacterial adhesion, potentially lowering secondary caries rates.[132] Recent advancements, documented in reviews from 2023 to 2025, emphasize their integration into composites and cements for direct restorations, with mechanisms rooted in ion-exchange reactions that mimic natural biomineralization processes.[133] Bioactive glass, particularly compositions like 45S5, has emerged as a key additive in resin composites, where particles dissolve to release soluble silica and ions that neutralize acids and form hydroxycarbonate apatite (HCA) interfaces with dentin and enamel.[134] Studies from 2022 onward show that composites loaded with 20-40% bioactive glass fillers exhibit enhanced marginal adaptation and antibacterial effects against Streptococcus mutans, though higher loadings can increase water sorption by up to sixfold, compromising flexural strength to levels below 100 MPa in some formulations.[135] Clinical trials indicate these materials reduce dentin hypersensitivity by sealing tubules within hours of application, with in vivo data from 2024 confirming apatite precipitation rates exceeding those of conventional glass ionomers.[136] Calcium phosphate-based cements, including nano-hydroxyapatite variants, offer injectability and biodegradability for minimally invasive restorations, setting via hydration to form brushite or monetite phases that resorb and support tissue regeneration.[137] Formulations optimized since 2021 incorporate bioactive glass precursors, achieving compressive strengths of 30-50 MPa while releasing phosphate ions to buffer pH drops below 5.5, as evidenced in 2024 in vitro models simulating cariogenic challenges.[138] These cements demonstrate superior biocompatibility in pulp proximity, with histological studies reporting reduced inflammation compared to amalgam, though their slower setting times (up to 10 minutes) limit use in high-load areas.[139] Resin-modified bioactive systems, such as those combining dimethacrylate matrices with rechargeable ion-releasing fillers, have gained traction for esthetic posterior restorations, sustaining calcium and fluoride efflux over 12 months under cyclic loading.[140] A 2025 analysis of commercial products like ACTIVA BioACTIVE-Cement highlights their dual-cure polymerization and fluoride recharge capacity, correlating with 20-30% lower biofilm accumulation in randomized trials versus non-bioactive composites.[141] However, peer-reviewed critiques note variability in long-term mechanical durability, with some materials showing 15-25% modulus degradation after 6 months of aqueous aging, underscoring the need for hybrid reinforcements like zirconia nanoparticles.[142] Nanoscale bioactive additives, including mesoporous bioactive glass doped with boron or silver, enable deeper penetration into demineralized dentin, enhancing antibiofilm efficacy through reactive oxygen species generation and ion gradients.[143] Developments reported in 2024-2025 trials demonstrate that nano-calcium phosphate hybrids in fillings achieve 40-60% higher remineralization depths (up to 100 μm) than micro-particle analogs, based on micro-CT assessments, though regulatory hurdles persist for widespread adoption due to cytotoxicity risks from unoptimized doping.[144] Overall, while empirical data affirm bioactive materials' potential to extend restoration longevity beyond 5-7 years in moderate-risk patients, their clinical superiority over established resins remains contingent on case-specific factors like occlusion and saliva flow, with ongoing randomized controlled trials needed to quantify caries inhibition rates.[145]Implant-Supported Restorations
Integration with Dental Implants
Osseointegration forms the foundational biological process for integrating dental implants with restorations, defined as the direct structural and functional connection between ordered living bone and the load-bearing implant surface without intervening soft tissue layers such as collagen or fibroblastic matrix.[146] This anchorage typically requires 3 to 6 months of unloaded healing post-implant placement to achieve sufficient primary stability transitioning to secondary stability via bone apposition on the implant surface.[147] Surface modifications, including increased roughness through sandblasting or acid-etching, enhance this process by promoting osteoblast attachment and bone-to-implant contact, with studies showing improved early osseointegration rates compared to machined surfaces.[148] Once osseointegration is confirmed via clinical torque testing or radiographic evaluation, restorations are attached using an intermediary abutment, which connects the implant fixture to the prosthetic crown, bridge, or denture. Screw-retained restorations secure the prosthesis directly or via the abutment using a titanium screw, offering retrievability for maintenance and repair without removal of the implant, though access holes may necessitate occlusal adjustments or composite fillings to restore esthetics and function.[149] Cement-retained options affix the restoration to a prefabricated or custom abutment with resin or provisional cements, providing superior esthetic outcomes by eliminating visible screw access and allowing angulated corrections, but excess subgingival cement can induce peri-implant inflammation if not fully removed.[150] Systematic reviews indicate no significant differences in implant survival rates or prosthetic complications between these methods over 5- to 10-year follow-ups, with both achieving over 95% success when primary stability exceeds 35 Ncm at placement.[151][152] Successful integration depends on multiple factors, including implant design (e.g., thread geometry for load distribution), patient-specific variables like bone density and systemic conditions (e.g., adequate vitamin D levels correlating with enhanced bone metabolism and implant stability), and surgical protocols avoiding micromotion during healing.[153][154] Poor osseointegration, occurring in 5-10% of cases, often stems from inadequate primary stability, smoking-induced vascular impairment, or uncontrolled diabetes impairing wound healing, necessitating measures like platelet-rich plasma or bioactive coatings to mitigate risks.[155][156] Emerging bioactive surfaces, such as those incorporating collagen or hydroxyapatite, further accelerate bone integration by mimicking extracellular matrix, with preclinical data showing up to 30% faster osseointegration timelines.[157]Prosthetic Options
Implant-supported prostheses are categorized as fixed or removable, with support classified as fully implant-borne (no reliance on mucosal tissues) or implant-assisted (shared support with tissues). Fixed options include single crowns for isolated tooth loss, fixed partial dentures (bridges) for multiple adjacent edentulous spans, and fixed complete dentures for full-arch edentulism, while removable options primarily consist of overdentures retained by attachments or bars.[158] [159] Retention mechanisms for fixed prostheses involve either screw retention, which facilitates retrievability for maintenance but associates with higher technical complication rates such as screw loosening, or cement retention, which may yield better esthetics and fewer mechanical failures but complicates prosthesis removal and risks excess cement-induced peri-implantitis.[160] [161] Single-implant crowns, attached via a custom abutment or directly to the implant fixture, replace individual missing teeth and demonstrate 5-year survival rates of 96-98%, influenced by factors like implant connection type (e.g., internal Morse taper outperforming external hexagon for bone stability).[162] [160] Implant-supported fixed partial dentures span 2-4 missing teeth, splinting multiple implants to enhance load distribution and stability, particularly in areas of moderate bone density; metal-ceramic variants exhibit 5-year survival of 96.4% and 10-year survival of 93.9%, though esthetic complications affect up to 33.6% of cases over a decade.[159] [162] For edentulous patients, fixed full-arch prostheses—often supported by 4-6 implants using protocols like All-on-4 to minimize surgical sites—provide rigid, non-patient-removable restoration mimicking natural dentition, with prosthodontic survival rates of 97.3-98.6% at 5 years and 97.3% at 10 years for one-piece designs in the mandible.[163] [159] Removable implant-assisted overdentures, typically retained by 2 implants in the mandible or 4 in the maxilla via resilient attachments (e.g., Locator) or bar systems, offer enhanced retention over tissue-borne dentures while permitting mucosal load-sharing in compromised bone (Misch Division C/D); these achieve implant survival of 95-100% over 5 years and improve patient satisfaction metrics like stability, though bar-clip designs may outperform magnets in retention longevity.[159] [164] Prosthesis selection hinges on bone volume, occlusal forces (e.g., bruxism favoring splinted designs), and arch extent, with immediate loading viable under stringent criteria like insertion torque >40 Ncm to match conventional protocols' outcomes.[160] [159]Complications and Risk Management
Biological and Inflammatory Risks
Biological risks associated with dental restorations encompass adverse tissue responses, including cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and inflammatory cascades triggered by material leachates or procedural trauma. Restorative materials such as composites can release unpolymerized monomers like bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), which exhibit cytotoxic effects on gingival fibroblasts and pulp cells, potentially disrupting cellular metabolism and inducing apoptosis in vitro.[165] Amalgam restorations, containing mercury, have been linked to localized inflammatory responses in susceptible individuals, though systemic effects remain debated and unsupported by large-scale epidemiological data.[166] Peer-reviewed analyses indicate that deep cavity preparations without adequate pulp protection heighten the risk of irreversible pulpitis, with inflammatory mediators such as interleukin-1β elevating post-procedure pain and tissue damage.[167] Inflammatory risks primarily manifest as pulpal and periodontal complications due to microbial ingress or biomechanical irritation. Overhanging margins in composite or amalgam fillings promote subgingival plaque retention, elevating gingival crevicular fluid levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-1β and TNF-α, which correlate with increased probing depths and attachment loss.[168] For indirect restorations such as crowns and bridges, ill-fitting prostheses exacerbate periodontal inflammation by violating biological width, leading to chronic gingival beveling and compromised healing, as evidenced by histopathological studies showing heightened leukocyte infiltration.[169] Implant-supported restorations carry risks of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, with cement-retained designs demonstrating a 4.6-fold higher incidence of gingival inflammation compared to screw-retained options, driven by excess subgingival cement acting as a nidus for bacterial biofilms.[170] Hypersensitivity reactions represent a subset of biological risks, predominantly type IV delayed allergies to metals (e.g., nickel, palladium in alloys) or acrylates in resins, manifesting as oral lichenoid lesions or stomatitis in 0.1-1% of patients.[171] Systematic reviews confirm that while rare, these reactions necessitate material substitution, with patch testing revealing sensitization rates up to 10% for certain alloys in exposed populations; however, causality requires histological confirmation to distinguish from idiopathic conditions.[172] Emerging bioactive materials may mitigate inflammation via ion release (e.g., calcium from glass ionomers promoting remineralization), but incomplete polymerization in provisional resins sustains low-grade gingival irritation through persistent monomer elution.[173] Overall, risk mitigation hinges on precise marginal adaptation and biocompatibility testing, as procedural factors like thermal expansion mismatch between dentin and restorative materials can propagate microcracks, facilitating bacterial invasion and secondary inflammation.[174]Mechanical and Structural Failures
Mechanical and structural failures in dental restorations include fractures of the restorative material or underlying tooth structure, debonding or loss of retention, excessive wear, and fatigue-induced degradation, often resulting from the interplay of occlusal loading and material limitations.[175] These failures compromise restoration integrity, potentially leading to functional impairment or the need for replacement, with biomechanical stresses such as repetitive masticatory forces exceeding material yield strengths being a primary causal factor.[176] In resin composite restorations, the predominant mechanisms involve breakdown at the resin matrix or filler-matrix interface, exacerbated by hydrolysis of silane coupling agents in the aqueous oral environment, which promotes filler particle debonding and crack propagation.[177] Cyclic occlusal loading induces fatigue, reducing flexural strength by 30-50% relative to static conditions, while water sorption and enzymatic degradation further diminish fracture toughness over time, with studies showing up to a 50% toughness loss in ethanol-water aged specimens under dynamic stress.[177] Wear occurs via subsurface microcracking and material loss, influenced by filler particle size and distribution, rendering composites susceptible in high-load posterior regions.[177] Ceramic-based indirect restorations, such as crowns and onlays, exhibit brittle fracture as a key structural failure mode, with survival rates for lithium disilicate crowns ranging from 62.7% to 100% over varying periods, though chipping or bulk fractures account for notable complications under cyclic loading that halves load-bearing capacity through microcrack accumulation.[178][175] Debonding rates can reach 26.5% in single-unit restorations due to inadequate luting agent adhesion or uneven stress distribution from occlusal interferences.[175] Amalgam restorations demonstrate greater resistance to wear but are prone to bulk fracture or cohesive failure within the tooth-restoration complex, often triggered by cuspal flexure under high occlusal forces or inadequate cavity design that fails to distribute loads effectively.[179] Metallic restorations like gold crowns show superior longevity, with zero failures reported in some 50-year follow-ups, attributed to their ductility mitigating fatigue cracks.[85] Contributing factors across materials include parafunctional habits like bruxism, which amplify overload, and design flaws such as insufficient tooth reduction or cantilever extensions in bridges, increasing fracture risk by up to fourfold in maxillae compared to mandibles.[176] Proper occlusal adjustment and biomimetic preparation enhance structural resilience by minimizing stress concentrations.[175]Efficacy and Longevity
Evidence-Based Survival Rates
Survival rates for dental restorations vary by material, location, extent of restoration, and patient factors, with empirical data from systematic reviews and meta-analyses providing the most reliable estimates. Direct posterior composite resin restorations exhibit 5-year survival rates of approximately 86% when placed by dental students, though rates can reach 78% over 12 years in clinical settings.[180] Amalgam restorations demonstrate superior longevity compared to composites, with median survival exceeding 16 years versus 11 years for composites in permanent posterior teeth, attributed to lower rates of secondary caries and fracture.[181] However, some meta-analyses find no statistically significant difference in overall failure risk between amalgam and composite, with annual failure rates for amalgam ranging from 0.16% to 2.83% and for composites from 1% to 4%, influenced by cavity size and operator technique.[182][183] For indirect restorations, partial coverage options like resin-modified ceramic (RMC) and lithium disilicate show estimated annual survival rates of 96.3% and 97.9%, respectively, translating to high cumulative survival over several years.[184] All-ceramic crowns achieve a 5-year survival of 93.3%, while metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses reach 94.4% at 5 years, with failures often linked to framework or veneer issues rather than catastrophic fracture.[185] Zirconia-based single crowns exhibit particularly high survival, at 98.3% over average follow-ups exceeding 5 years in systematic reviews of 35 studies.[186] Endocrowns, an alternative to conventional post-core crowns, show 91.4% 5-year survival, lower than the 98.3% for traditional crowns but with fewer complications in endodontically treated teeth.[187] Fixed bridges demonstrate robust outcomes, with tooth-supported bridges surviving at rates exceeding 97% after 1 year and 90.8% after 5 years; resin-bonded bridges achieve 91.4% survival in meta-analyses of over 2,300 cases.[188][189] Implant-supported restorations maintain high survival, with single crowns at 97.6% over 3 years for veneered glass-ceramic and overall rates of 98.3% for metal-ceramic prostheses; however, long-term data (beyond 10 years) show declines to around 88% due to peri-implantitis and mechanical failures.[190][191] Tooth-implant-supported fixed prostheses have 90.8% survival at 5 years, dropping to 82.5% at 10 years.[192]| Restoration Type | Estimated Survival Rate | Time Frame | Key Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amalgam (posterior) | 94.4% | Up to 10+ years | [73] |
| Composite resin (posterior, direct) | 85.5% | Up to 10 years | [73] |
| All-ceramic crowns | 93.3% | 5 years | [185] |
| Zirconia single crowns | 98.3% | Average >5 years | [186] |
| Resin-bonded bridges | 91.4% | 5 years | [189] |
| Implant-supported single crowns | 97.6% | 3 years | [190] |
