Author:
Al-Asmar Ayah A.,Sabrah Alaa H.A.,Ismail Noor H.,Abd-Raheam Islam M.,Oweis Yara G.
Abstract
Objective:
The present study aims to investigate the reasons for the immediate failure of direct anterior and posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study on resin composite restorations placed by fourth- and fifth-year dental students (n=436). Variables included in the study were; the operative field isolation method, the time needed to complete the restoration after cavity preparation to polishing and finishing, and the plaque index of the patient. Restoration class distribution according to the type of tooth and cavity classification was examined and recorded. Restorations were clinically evaluated immediately after placement. It involved the assessment of the restoration’s mobility, marginal discoloration, and lack of anatomy.
Results:
A total of 233 direct anterior and posterior resin composite restorations which were placed by 127 students were diagnosed as failed restorations. The mode of failure was distributed as mobility/debonding (61.80%), marginal discoloration (29.18%), and lack of anatomy (9.02%). Cl III restorations demonstrated the highest failure on tooth type and cavity classification (30%), followed by Cl II restorations in molars (18.45%). Failure-associated factors were proper restoration manipulation, field isolation, and patients’ plaque index.
Conclusion:
In the current study, the most frequent reason for the immediate failure of resin composite restorations was the quick application of the restoration either as the only associated factor or coupled with other failure-associated factors. Failure to maintain proper field isolation and the poor oral hygiene of the patient were the other two failure-associated factors.
Publisher
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Reference34 articles.
1. Talabani RM.
Placement and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations for patient attending to dental school.
Int J Dev Res
2015;
5
(7)
: 5059-64.
2. Mendiratta M, Manjunath BC, Kumar A, Yadav V, Wig M, Kumar A.
Minimal invasive dentistry: A narrative review.
Eur J Mol Clin Med
2021;
8
(3)
: 3167-79.
3. Walsh LJ, Brostek AM.
Minimum intervention dentistry principles and objectives.
Aust Dent J
2013;
58
(S1)
: 3-16.
4. Uttarwar V, Gunwal M, Sonarkar S, Pradhan M, Mokhade V, Kokane V.
Clinical longevity of dental amalgam vs resins-based composites - A literature review.
IOSR J Dent Med Sci
2019;
18
(5)
: 62-4.
5. Sidhu P, Sultan OS, Math SY, et al.
Current and future trends in the teaching of direct posterior resin composites in Malaysian dental schools: A cross-sectional study.
J Dent
2021;
110
: 103683.