Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations
Background: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the most common reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations in patients attending the university dental restorative clinics. Methods: A total of 318 restorations which needed to be replaced were clinically and radio...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Saudi Dental Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300038X |
| _version_ | 1797849283224928256 |
|---|---|
| author | Ayah A Al-Asmar Alaa HA Sabrah Islam M Abd-Raheam Noor H Ismail Yara G Oweis |
| author_facet | Ayah A Al-Asmar Alaa HA Sabrah Islam M Abd-Raheam Noor H Ismail Yara G Oweis |
| author_sort | Ayah A Al-Asmar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the most common reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations in patients attending the university dental restorative clinics. Methods: A total of 318 restorations which needed to be replaced were clinically and radiographically evaluated in a period of nine months. The frequencies of reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations were calculated; secondary caries, restoration/tooth fracture, marginal discoloration/ditching, proximal overhang/open margin, loss of anatomy, pain/sensitivity, and esthetics. Results: The sample population comprised of 191 females and 106 males. The majority of the sample population fell in the age group of 40–50 years (n = 110). 318 restorations (n = 318) were examined in this study. 82% of examined teeth were restored with amalgam (n = 261), while posterior composite restorations comprised 18% of the examined teeth (n = 57). Among all restorations demanded to be replaced by the patients (n = 318), aesthetic need was the most common reason (n = 98), followed by Ditching or discoloration (n = 64), secondary caries (n = 57), and fracture (n = 44). Loss of anatomy was the least common cause to replace both amalgam and resin composite restorations (n = 5). The different reasons of failure were all significant between amalgam and resin composite restorations as shown in (Fig. 1) (p < 0.005). The most common reason for amalgam replacement was aesthetic. The most common reason for composite replacement was secondary caries and marginal ditching. Conclusion: Both amalgam and composite had different reasons for replacement. Amalgam had lesser risk of developing secondary caries and higher longevity than composite. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T18:41:22Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-10939f97cc6a49b3b3fd5ad850f8fc9b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1013-9052 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T18:41:22Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Saudi Dental Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-10939f97cc6a49b3b3fd5ad850f8fc9b2023-04-11T04:04:49ZengElsevierSaudi Dental Journal1013-90522023-03-01353275281Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorationsAyah A Al-Asmar0Alaa HA Sabrah1Islam M Abd-Raheam2Noor H Ismail3Yara G Oweis4Corresponding author at: Restorative Dentistry Department, School of Dentistry, Jordan University, Queen Rania St, 11942, Amman, Jordan.; Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Jordan, Amman, JordanDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Jordan, Amman, JordanDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Jordan, Amman, JordanDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Jordan, Amman, JordanDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Jordan, Amman, JordanBackground: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the most common reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations in patients attending the university dental restorative clinics. Methods: A total of 318 restorations which needed to be replaced were clinically and radiographically evaluated in a period of nine months. The frequencies of reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations were calculated; secondary caries, restoration/tooth fracture, marginal discoloration/ditching, proximal overhang/open margin, loss of anatomy, pain/sensitivity, and esthetics. Results: The sample population comprised of 191 females and 106 males. The majority of the sample population fell in the age group of 40–50 years (n = 110). 318 restorations (n = 318) were examined in this study. 82% of examined teeth were restored with amalgam (n = 261), while posterior composite restorations comprised 18% of the examined teeth (n = 57). Among all restorations demanded to be replaced by the patients (n = 318), aesthetic need was the most common reason (n = 98), followed by Ditching or discoloration (n = 64), secondary caries (n = 57), and fracture (n = 44). Loss of anatomy was the least common cause to replace both amalgam and resin composite restorations (n = 5). The different reasons of failure were all significant between amalgam and resin composite restorations as shown in (Fig. 1) (p < 0.005). The most common reason for amalgam replacement was aesthetic. The most common reason for composite replacement was secondary caries and marginal ditching. Conclusion: Both amalgam and composite had different reasons for replacement. Amalgam had lesser risk of developing secondary caries and higher longevity than composite.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300038XResin compositeAmalgamRecurrent cariesFractureAesthetics |
| spellingShingle | Ayah A Al-Asmar Alaa HA Sabrah Islam M Abd-Raheam Noor H Ismail Yara G Oweis Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations Saudi Dental Journal Resin composite Amalgam Recurrent caries Fracture Aesthetics |
| title | Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations |
| title_full | Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations |
| title_fullStr | Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations |
| title_short | Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations |
| title_sort | clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations |
| topic | Resin composite Amalgam Recurrent caries Fracture Aesthetics |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300038X |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ayahaalasmar clinicalevaluationofreasonsforreplacementofamalgamvscompositeposteriorrestorations AT alaahasabrah clinicalevaluationofreasonsforreplacementofamalgamvscompositeposteriorrestorations AT islammabdraheam clinicalevaluationofreasonsforreplacementofamalgamvscompositeposteriorrestorations AT noorhismail clinicalevaluationofreasonsforreplacementofamalgamvscompositeposteriorrestorations AT yaragoweis clinicalevaluationofreasonsforreplacementofamalgamvscompositeposteriorrestorations |