Download PDF
ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2003; 112(5): 205-214
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-39465
Wissenschaft
Zahnerhaltung
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Überlebenszeitanalyse von konservierend-zahnärztlichen Restaurationen - Teil II: Direkte Füllungen aus Amalgam und Glasionomerzement im Seitenzahnbereich

Longevity of Dental Restorations - Part II: Amalgam and Glass Ionomer Restorations in Stress-bearing Posterior TeethJ. Manhart1 , H. Y. Chen1 , R. Hickel1
  • 1München
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 May 2003 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel analysiert die in der zahnärztlichen Fachliteratur publizierten klinischen Studien zu Amalgamfüllungen und Füllungen auf der Basis von Glasionomerzementen in Klasse-I- und -II-Kavitäten in Bezug auf Überlebenszeiten der Restaurationen und Faktoren, welche die Verweildauer im Mund begünstigen bzw. ein Risiko für frühzeitigen Füllungsverlust darstellen.

Summary

This article analyzes clinical studies on amalgam restorations and on glass ionomer restorations in stress-bearing class I and class II cavities with regard to longevity. Reasons for early restoration failure are discussed as well as factors which promote restoration success.

Schlüsselwörter

Überlebenszeitanalyse - Amalgam - Glasionomerzement - Seitenzahn - Risikofaktoren

Key Words

Longevity - Amalgam - Glass Ionomer Cement - Posterior Teeth - Risc Factors

Literatur

  • 1 Allan DN. The durability of conservative restorations.  Br Dent J. 1969;  126 172-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Allan DN. A longitudinal study of dental restorations.  Br Dent J. 1977;  143 87-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Benz C, Stabel W, Mehl A, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of modified glass ionomers in class II restorations.  J Dent Res. 1997;  76 165
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bjertness E, Sonju T. Survival analysis of amalgam restorations in long-term recall patients.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;  48 93-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burke FJT, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NHF. Reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations in vocational training practices.  Prim Dent Care. 1999;  6 17-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Burke FJT, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NHF. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom.  Quintessence Int. 1999;  30 234-242
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cichon P, Kerschbaum T. Verweildauer zahnärztlicher Restaurationen bei Behinderten.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1999;  54 96-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Crabb HSM. The survival of dental restorations in a teaching hospital.  Br Dent J. 1981;  150 315-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Croll TP, Phillips RW. Six years experience with glass-ionomer-silver cermet cement.  Quintessence Int. 1991;  22 783-793
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dahl JE, Eriksen HM. Reasons for replacement of amalgam dental restorations.  Scand J Dent Res. 1978;  86 404-407
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Doglia R, Herr P, Holz J, Baume J L. Clinical evaluation of four amalgam alloys: A five-year report.  J Prosthet Dent. 1986;  56 406-415
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Easton GS. Causes and prevention of amalgam failures.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1941;  28 392-400
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Forsten L, Mount GJ, Knight G. Observations in Australia of the use of glass ionomer cement restorative material.  Aust Dent J. 1994;  39 339-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD. Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe: Evaluation after 1 year.  Caries Res. 1996;  30 428-433
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD. ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: Survival after 3 years.  Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998;  26 372-381
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Frencken JE, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P, Pilot T. An atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique: Evaluation after one year.  Int Dent J. 1994;  44 460-464
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hasselrot L. Tunnel restorations. A 3 1/2-year follow up study of Class I and II tunnel restorations in permanent and primary teeth.  Swed Dent J. 1993;  17 173-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hasselrot L. Tunnel restorations in permanent teeth. A 7 year follow up study.  Swed Dent J. 1998;  22 1-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hawthorne WS, Smales RJ. Factors influencing long-term restoration survival in three private dental practices in Adelaide.  Aust Dent J. 1997;  42 59-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Healey HJ, Phillips RW. A clinical study of amalgam failures.  J Dent Res. 1949;  28 439-446
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hickel R. Moderne Füllungswerkstoffe.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1997;  52 572-585
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials.  Int Dent J. 1998;  48 3-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hickel R, Manhart J. Glass-ionomers and compomers in pediatric dentistry.  1999;  201-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hickel R, Petschelt A, Maier J, Voß A, Sauter M. Nachuntersuchung von Füllungen mit Cermet-Zement (Ketac-Silver).  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1988;  43 851-853
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ho TFT, Smales RJ, Fang DTS. A 2-year clinical study of two glass ionomer cements used in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique.  Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;  27 195-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hunt PR. A modified class II cavity preparation for glass ionomer restorative materials.  Quintessence Int. 1984;  10 1011-1018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hunt PR. Microconservative restorations for approximal carious lesions.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1990;  120 37-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Jokstad A, Mjör IA. Analyses of long-term clinical behavior of class-II amalgam restorations.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1991;  49 47-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jokstad A, Mjör IA. Replacement reasons and service time of class II amalgam restorations in relation to cavity design.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1991;  49 109-126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jokstad A, Mjör IA, Qvist V. The age of restorations in situ.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1994;  52 234-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kamann WK, Gängler P. Zur Funktionszeit von Amalgam-, Komposite- und Goldhämmerfüllungen.  ZWR. 1999;  108 270-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Klausner LH, Charbeneau GT. Amalgam restorations: A cross-sectional survey of placement and replacement.  J Mich Dent Assoc. 1985;  67 249-252
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Krämer N, Kunzelmann KH, Pollety T, Pelka M, Hickel R. Langzeiterfahrungen mit Cermet-Zementfüllungen in Klasse-I/II-Kavitäten.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1994;  49 905-909
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kreulen CM, Tobi H, Gruythuysen RJM, van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PJ. Replacement risk of amalgam treatment modalities: 15-year results.  J Dent. 1998;  26 627-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lavelle CLB. A cross-sectional survey into the durability of amalgam restorations.  J Dent. 1976;  4 139-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Letzel H, van-'t-Hof MA, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. The influence of the amalgam alloy on the survival of amalgam restorations: A secondary analysis of multiple controlled clinical trials.  J Dent Res. 1997;  76 1787-1798
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Letzel H, van-'t-Hof MA, Vrijhoef MM, Marshall-GW J, Marshall J S. A controlled clinical study of amalgam restorations: Survival, failures, and causes of failure.  Dent Mater. 1989;  5 115-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Letzel H, van-'t-Hof MA, Vrijhoef MMA, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. Failure, survival, and reasons for replacement of amalgam restorations.  In: Anusavice K (ed.). Quality evaluation of dental restorations.  Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. 1989;  83-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Mahmood S, Smales RJ. Longevity of dental restorations in selected patients from different practice environments.  Aust Dent J. 1994;  39 15-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Mair LH. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.  Quintessence Int. 1998;  29 483-490
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Mallow P, Durward C, Klaipo M. Comparison of two glass ionomer cements using the ART technique.  J Dent Res. 1995;  74 405
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Mallow PK, Durward CS, Klaipo M. Restoration of permanent teeth in young rural children in Cambodia using the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique and Fuji II glass ionomer cement.  Int J Paediatr. 1998;  8 35-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Manhart J, Hickel R. Longevity of restorations.  In: Wilson N H F, Roulet J F, Fuzzi M (eds.). Advances in operative dentistry. Challenges of the future.  Quintessence Publishing Co., Berlin. 2001;  237-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Martin JA, Bader JD. Five-year treatment outcomes for teeth with large amalgams and crowns.  Oper Dent. 1997;  22 72-78
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Maryniuk GA, Kaplan SH. Longevity of restorations: Survey results of dentists' estimates and attitudes.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1986;  112 39-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 McLean JW, Gasser O. Glass-cermet cements.  Quintessence Int. 1985;  16 333-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Mjör IA. Placement and replacement of restorations.  Oper Dent. 1981;  6 49-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Mjör IA. Amalgam and composite resin resin restorations: Longevity and reasons for replacement.  In: Anusavice K (ed.). Quality evaluation of dental restorations.  Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. 1989;  61-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Mjör IA. Long term cost of restorative therapy using different materials.  Scand J Dent Res. 1992;  100 60-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Mjör IA. Problems and benefits associated with restorative materials: Side-effects and long-term cost.  Adv Dent Res. 1992;  6 7-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Mjör IA. Repair versus replacement of failed restorations.  Int Dent J. 1993;  43 466-472
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Mjör IA. Glass ionomer restorations and secondary caries. A preliminary report.  Quintessence Int. 1996;  27 171-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Mjör IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1997;  55 58-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Mjör IA, Jokstad A. Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment and resin-based composite materials.  J Dent. 1993;  21 338-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Mjör IA, Jokstad A, Qvist V. Longevity of posterior restorations.  Int Dent J. 1990;  40 11-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations in Italy.  Oper Dent. 1992;  17 70-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Moffa JP. Comparative performance of amalgam and composite resin restorations and criteria for their use.  In: Anusavice K (ed.). Quality evaluation of dental restorations.  Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. 1989;  125-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Mount GJ. Longevity in glass-ionomer restorations: Review of a successful technique.  Quintessence Int. 1997;  28 643-650
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Nicolaisen S, von der Fehr FR, Lunder N, Thomsen I. Performance of tunnel restorations at 3-6 years.  J Dent. 2000;  28 383-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Osborne JW, Binon PP, Gale EN. Dental amalgam: clinical behavior up to eight years.  Oper Dent. 1980;  5 24-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Osborne JW, Normann RD, Gale EN. A 14-year clinical assessment of 12 amalgam alloys.  Quintessence Int. 1991;  22 857-864
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Papa J, Wilson PR, Tyas MJ. Tunnel restorations: A review.  J Esthet Dent. 1992;  4 4-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Paterson N. The longevity of restorations.  Br Dent J. 1984;  157 23-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Pilot T, Frencken JE. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): A three-year community field trial in Thailand - survival of one-surface restorations in the permanent dentition.  J Public Health Dent. 1996;  56 141-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Pieper K, Meyer G, Marienhagen B, Motsch A. Eine Langzeitstudie an Amalgam- und Kunststoff-Füllungen.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1991;  46 222-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Pilebro CE, van Dijken JWV. Analysis of factors affecting failure of glass cermet tunnel restorations in a multi-center study.  Clin Oral. 2001;  5 96-101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Plasmans PJ, Creugers NH, Mulder J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations.  J Dent Res. 1998;  77 453-460
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;  48 297-303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;  48 305-311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Qvist V, Thylstrup A, Mjör IA. Restorative treatment pattern and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1986;  44 343-349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Richardson AS, Boyde MA. Replacement of silver amalgam restorations by 50 dentists during 246 working days.  Can Dent Assoc J. 1973;  39 556-559
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Robinson AD. The life of a filling.  Br Dent J. 1971;  130 206-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Roulet JF. Esthetic posterior restorations.  1995; Proceedings of the International Symposium, Bologna, 18. November. 1995;  27-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam.  J Dent. 1997;  25 459-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Roulet JF. Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam - results up to 6 years.  Clin Oral Invest. 1997;  1 40-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NHF. A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations.  J Adhesive Dent. 1999;  1 323-331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Smales RJ. Longevity of cusp-covered amalgams: Survivals after 15 years.  Oper Dent. 1991;  16 17-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Smales RJ, Gerke DC, White IL. Clinical evaluation of occlusal glass ionomer, resin, and amalgam restorations.  J Dent. 1990;  18 243-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Smales RJ, Hawthorne WS. Long-term survival and cost-effectiveness of five dental restorative materials used in various classes of cavity preparations.  Int Dent J. 1996;  46 126-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Smales RJ, Hawthorne WS. Long-term survival of extensive amalgams and posterior crowns.  J Dent. 1997;  25 225-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictions of amalgam restorations.  J Dent. 1991;  19 272-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictions of four types of dental restorative materials.  J Dent. 1991;  19 278-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Strand GV, Nordbo H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR, Eide GE. Tunnel restorations placed in routine practice and observed for 24 to 54 months.  Quintessence Int. 2000;  31 453-460
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Strand GV, Nordbo H, Tveit AB, Espelid I, Wikstrand K, Eide GE. A 3-year clinical study of tunnel restorations.  Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;  104 384-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Summitt JB, Burgess JO, Berry TG. et al. . The performance of bonded vs.pin-retained complex amalgam restorations. A five-year clinical evaluation.  J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;  132 923-931
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Svanberg M. Class II amalgam restorations, glass-ionomer tunnel restorations, and caries development on adjacent tooth surfaces: A 3-year clinical study.  Caries Res. 1992;  26 315-318
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration.  Br Dent J. 1990;  169 361-366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass-ionomer cement.  Quintessence Publishing Co., Chicago. 1988; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NHF. A practice-based randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: One-year results.  Oper Dent. 2002;  27 423-429
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Wilson NHF, Burke FJT, Mjör IA. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations of direct restorative materials by a selected group of practitioners in the United Kingdom.  Quintess Int. 1997;  28 245-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Wilson NHF, Wastell DG, Norman RD. Five-year performance of high-copper content amalgam restorations in a multiclinical trial of a posterior composite.  J Dent. 1996;  24 203-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Wolcott RB. Failures in dental amalgam.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1958;  56 479-491
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Yip KHK, Smales RJ, Gao W, Peng D. The effect of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations. An evaluation after 12 months.  J Am Dent Assoc. 2002;  133 744-751
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Korrespondenzadresse

OA Dr. J. Manhart

Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltung und Parodontologie

Goethestraße 70, 80336 München

Fax: 089/5160-5344

Email: manhart@manhart.com

URL: http://www.manhart.com

      >