Embedded Files
Page 25
field of operation Requires well-controlled field of operation Requires wellcontrolled field of operation Moderately tolerant to moisture during placement Very little tolerance to moisture during placement Very little tolerance to moisture during placement Very little tolerance to moisture during placement 11 Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration 4.2 Restoration longevity The longevity of different materials is not easily established because the data depends on a multitude of factors, where material selection is just one. Study design, cavity selection, the operators’ experience, non-standardized evaluation criteria, and the study cohorts play a role for the clinical outcome (27). However, several studies indicate that amalgam tend to last longer than other materials available (28, 29), whereas recent data suggest that RBCs perform equally well (29). The most prevalent reasons for failure of fillings are secondary caries and fracture (29, 30). The longevity of glass-ionomers is lower than that of amalgam or RBCs (31-33), however, these materials have frequently been assessed in primary teeth. In fillings subjected to low chewing forces, the composite materials perform better than a glass ionomer cement (34). The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) procedure appears to provide some positive results in primary teeth (35). Reinforced zincoxide-based cements are recommended for “semi-permanent” restoration lasting up to approximately one year.
Google Sites
Report abuse