Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This retrospective study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of posterior multi-surface Class II amalgam (AM) and resin composite (RC) restorations placed by dental students over a five-year period.
Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the clinical performance of posterior multi-surface Class II amalgam (AM) and resin composite (RC) restorations placed by dental students over a five-year period. Materials and Methods: A total of 119 multi-surface Class II restorations (three or more surfaces) placed by third and fourth year students will be evaluated (AM: n = 69 and RC: n = 50). Restorations were assessed clinically according to the USPHS criteria by two independent evaluators using mirrors and probes. Data will be analyzed using Chisquare, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests at a 0.05 level of significance.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1- Amalgam restorations | Multi-surface amalgam restorations performed by dental students and are in function for about 5 years. |
| |
| Group 2- Composite restorations | Multi-surface composite restorations performed by dental students and are in function for about 5 years. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective evaluation of amalgam and composite restorations | Other | Multi-surface restorations that were performed by dental students and that are in function for the last five years will be clinically evaluated with mirrors and probes according to the modified USPHS criteria. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Postoperative sensitivity | No Patient-reported sensitivity to hot and cold stimuli, sweets, clenching, and chewing related to the restoration (Alpha) | 5 years |
| Secondary caries | No visual evidence of dark, deep discoloration adjacent to the restoration (Alpha) | 5 years |
| Proximal contact | No open contact. Contact offers resistance to the dental floss (Alpha) | 5 years |
| Marginal Adaptation | Restoration closely adapted to the tooth. No crevice visible (Alpha) | 5 years |
| Fracture restoration | No evidence of fracture (Alpha) | 5 years |
| Fracture tooth | No evidence of fracture (Alpha) | 5 years |
| Anatomy | Restorations continuous with existing anatomic form (Alpha) | 5 years |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Adults patients who had complex amalgam or resin composite restorations (three or more surfaces) placed on molar or premolar areas by dental students in the Adult Dental Clinic over a five-year period.
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schulich Medicine and Dentistry - Western University | London | Ontario | N6A5C1 | Canada |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23215545 | Background | Cetin AR, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Oper Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr;38(2):E1-11. doi: 10.2341/12-160-C. Epub 2012 Dec 5. | |
| 8258583 | Result | Mjor 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 Dec;21(6):338-43. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(93)90006-c. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| 19085213 | Result | Vidnes-Kopperud S, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Factors influencing dentists' choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients. Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67(2):74-9. doi: 10.1080/00016350802577800. |
| 22546263 | Result | Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent. 2012 Sep;40(9):703-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.020. Epub 2012 Apr 28. |
| 24683067 | Result | Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 31;(3):CD005620. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub2. |
| 23550914 | Result | Rho YJ, Namgung C, Jin BH, Lim BS, Cho BH. Longevity of direct restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities: a retrospective study. Oper Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;38(6):572-82. doi: 10.2341/12-432-C. Epub 2013 Apr 3. |
| 26091581 | Result | Beck F, Lettner S, Graf A, Bitriol B, Dumitrescu N, Bauer P, Moritz A, Schedle A. Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Dent Mater. 2015 Aug;31(8):958-85. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.004. Epub 2015 Jun 16. |
| 28513897 | Result | Borgia E, Baron R, Borgia JL. Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study. J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan;28(1):e195-e203. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12630. Epub 2017 May 17. |