Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

REPLACEMENT OF POSTERIOR RESTORATIONS

구치부 수복물의 재수복에 관한 연구

  • Kim, Ji-Young (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University) ;
  • Choi, Kyoung-Kyu (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University) ;
  • Park, Sang-Jin (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School of KyungHee University)
  • 김지영 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 최경규 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 박상진 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과보존학교실)
  • Published : 2006.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article complies a survey on the replacement of the posterior restorations and accesses possible factors that influence the replacement of posterior restorations. The data was collected from patients that visited department of conservative dentistry from Dec 1st 2003, to Sep 3rd 2004. Teeth was restricted to posterior permanent teeth. 9 dentists recorded age, gender of patients, tooth location, cavity farm and restorative material. They rated marginal adaptation, anatomic form, secondary caries of old restoration by modified Ryge criteria system. The statistical analysis was performed with Chi square test (p < 0.05) for replacement ratio according to patients, tooth factor and One way ANOVA was performed for comparison of old restoration according to restorative material. The results were as follows; 1. The female (62%) was statistically higher ratio than the male (38%). 2. The distribution of replacement case according to age, the rate of replacement was in descending order, 20's (38.3%), 40's (16.8%), 30's (15.9%), 10's (11.1%), 50's (9.2%), 60's (8.7%). 3. The rate of replacement was 88% for molar and 12% for premolar (p $gt; 0.05). 4. The rate of replacement was 39% for maxillar and 61% for mandible (p $gt; 0.05). 5. The material of restorations was amalgam (69%), gold inlay (17%), composite resin (13%). 6. In rating system by modified Ryge criteria system on margin adaptation, there was statistically significant difference between amalgam and gold inlay. But on anatomic form and caries, there was no statistically significant difference among the material of restorations.

본 연구는 환자의 성별, 치료 부위 , 와동 형태 , 기존 수복물의 재료에 따른 구치부 재수복에 관하여 보고하고자 한다. 2003년 12월 1일부터 2004년 10월 31일까지 구치부의 재수복을 위해 보존과를 내원한 824명의 환자의 1206개의 치아를 실험재료로 택하였으며 영구치로 제한하였다. 환자의 성별 및 연령, 치료 부위, 와동 형태, 기존 수복물의 재료와 기존 수복물의 내원 당시 상태를 변연 적합성, 해부학적 형태, 이차 우식에 대해 modified Ryge criteria system으로 기록하였다. 환자 및 치아 요소에 따른 재수복율은 카이 제곱 검정으로, 각 재료별 기존 수복물의 상태는 One-way ANOVA로 분석하였다. 구치부 수복물의 재수복은 환자의 성별, 연령 , 치아 위치, 기존 수복 재료에 따른 차이가 존재함을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3(1) :45-64, 2001
  2. Mjor IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 55:58-63, 1997 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359709091943
  3. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 25:459-473, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00066-8
  4. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. Int Dent J 48:3-16, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595X.1998.tb00688.x
  5. Palotie U, Vehkalahti M. Reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in posterior teeth of young Finnish adults. Acta Odontol Scand 60(6): 325-9, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1080/000163502762667333
  6. Anderson MH. Current concepts of dental caries and its prevention. Operative Dentistry 6(1): 11-18, 2001
  7. Mjor IA. Amalgam and composite resin restorations: longevity and reasons for replacement. Quint Int 61-80, 1989
  8. Allander L, Birkhed D, Bratthall D. Reasons for replacement of class II amalgam restorations in private practice. Swed Dent J 14: 179-84, 1990
  9. Forss H, Wid strom E. Factors influencing the selection of restorative materials in dental care in Finland. J Dent 24:257-62, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00070-4
  10. Burke FJT, Cheung SW, Mjor lA, Wilson NHK. 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. Quint Int 30:234-42, 1999
  11. Mjor IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Ocontol Scand 57(5): 257-62, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1080/000163599428661
  12. Deligeorgi V, Mjor lA, Wilson NH. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care 8(1) :5-11, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1308/135576101771799335
  13. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjor IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent 29(5): 317-24, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00022-7
  14. Latzel 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 76:1787-1798. 1997 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345970760111101
  15. Mjor IA. Long term cost of restorative therapy using different materials. Scand J Dent Res 100:60-5. 1992
  16. Stroll R. Sieweke M. Pieper K, Stachniss V. Schulte A. Longevity of cast gold inlays and partial crowns-a retrospective study at a dental school clinic. Clin Oral Invest 3:100-104. 1999 https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050086
  17. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30(4):347-358. 1980
  18. Ryge G. The Californian dental association quality evaluation system: a standard for self-assessment In Quality Evaluation of Dental restorations, edited by KJ Anusavice Chicago. Quintessence Pub Co Inc. 273-286, 1989
  19. Ryge G, Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Mjor I. Standardization of clinical investigators for studies of restorative materials. Swed Dent J 5(5-6) :235-239. 1981
  20. Mjor IA. Moorhead JE. Dahl JE. Reason for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 50(6) :360-366. 2000
  21. Gruythuysen RJM, Kreulen CM. Tobi H. van Amerongen E. Akerboom HEM. 15-year evaluation of Class n amalgam restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 24:207-10. 1996 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1996.tb00843.x
  22. Mjor IA. Dahl JE. Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 60(1):25-28. 2001 https://doi.org/10.1080/000163502753471961
  23. Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictions of amalgam restorations. J Dent 16:17-20. 1991 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(88)90097-8
  24. Plasmans PJJM. Creugers NHJ. Mulder J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 77:453-460, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345980770030401
  25. Mjor IA, C Shen, ST Eliasson, S Richter. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 27(2):117-123. 2002
  26. Hamilton JC, Moffa JP, Ellison JA, Jenkins WA. Marginal fracture not a predictor of longevity for two dental amalgam alloys: a ten-year study. J Prosthet Dent 50 :200-2. 1983 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90013-6
  27. Osborn JW, Norman RD, Gale EN. A 14-year clinical assessment of 12 amalgam alloys. Quint Int 22:278-82. 1991
  28. Christensen GJ. The coming demise of the cast gold restoration? J Am Dent Assoc. 127: 1233-1236. 1996 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0417
  29. J Wagner, K.A. Hiller, G. Schmalz. Long-term clinical performance and longevity of gold alloy vs ceramic partial crown. Clin Oral Invest 7 :80-85, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0205-8
  30. M. Hayashi, N.H.F. Wilson, D.C. Watts. Quality of marginal adaptation evaluation of posterior composites in clinical trials. J Dent Res 82(1) :59-63. 2003 https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200113

Cited by

  1. Repair Rate of Composite Resin Restorations in Permanent First Molar in Children Under 12 Years Old vol.45, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2018.45.3.370