31. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:775– 783.
32. Cohen BD, Milobsky SA. Monetary damages in dental-injury cases. Trial Lawyers Quarterly 1989;20:80–81.
Table 6-1 Features and applications of single-tooth restorations
Restoration |
Size of lesion |
Longevity rating |
FPD abutment |
RPD abutment |
Esthetics |
Retention |
Protects tooth |
Replaces cusp |
Occlusal restoration |
Incisal restoration |
Facial restoration |
Endodontic restoration |
Intracoronal |
Glass ionomer |
Incipient |
5 |
No |
No |
Adequate |
NA |
No |
No |
Poor |
Poor |
Class V |
No |
Composite resin |
Incipient to moderate |
4 |
No |
No |
Good |
NA |
No |
No |
Poor |
Adequate |
Class V |
No |
Simple amalgam |
Incipient to moderate |
1 |
No |
Yes |
Poor to adequate* |
NA |
No |
No |
Class II |
No |
Class V |
No |
Complex amalgam |
Large |
3 |
No |
Yes |
Poor to adequate* |
NA |
Some |
Yes |
Adequate |
No |
All † |
Yes † |
Metal inlay |
Moderate |
2 |
No |
Yes |
Poor to adequate* |
Minimal |
No § |
No |
Class II |
Poor |
Class V |
No |
Ceramic inlay |
Moderate |
3 |
No |
No |
Good |
Minimal |
No § |
No |
Class II |
Adequate |
Class V |
No |
MOD onlay |
Moderate to large |
1 |
No |
Yes |
Poor to adequate* |
Moderate |
Yes |
Yes |
Good |
No |
No |
Yes |
Extracoronal |
Partial coverage crown |
Large |
1 |
Yes |
Yes |
Poor to adequate |
Moderate |
Yes |
Yes |
Good |
Poor |
Rev ¾; Prox ½† |
Yes |
All-metal crown |
Large |
1 |
Yes |
Yes |
Poor |
Good |
Yes |
Yes |
Good |
Poor |
All † |
Yes |
Metal-ceramic crown |
Large |
2 |
Yes |
Yes |
Good |
Good |
Yes |
Yes |
Good |
Good |
All |
Yes |
All-ceramic crown |
Large |
3 |
No |
No |
Good |
Good |
Yes |
Yes || |
Adequate |
Good |
All |
Yes |
Ceramic veneer |
Incipient |
3 |
No |
No |
Good |
Adequate |
No |
No ¶ |
Poor |
Good |
All |
No |
FPD, fixed partial denture; RPD, removable partial denture; NA, not applicable; rev, reverse; prox, proximal.
*Dependent on tooth position, location of restoration (mesial or distal), and patient expectation.
†Structurally sound, but not esthetic.
†An acceptable compromise treatment if cusps are capped with amalgam.
§May offer some protection in conjunction with etching and bonding.
||When used with a core or foundation restoration.
¶Can be used to replace an incisal corner.
Table 6-2 Longevity of single-tooth restorations
Investigator(s) |
Type of study |
No. of restorations |
Restoration type |
Glass ionomer |
Composite resin |
Simple amalgam |
Complex amalgam |
Metal inlay |
Ceramic inlay |
MOD onlay |
Partial coverage crown |
All-metal crown |
Metal-ceramic crown |
All-ceramic crown |
Ceramic veneer |
Bentley and Drake 14 |
Clinical |
1,207 |
— |
55.9% at 10 y |
72.0% at 10 y |
— |
87.3% at 10 y |
— |
87.3% at 10 y |
— |
86.3% at 10 y |
— |
— |
— |
Maryniuk 15 |
Clinical* |
1,940 |
— |
— |
10 to 14 y |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Meeuwissen et al 16 |
Clinical |
8,492 |
— |
— |
58.0% at 10 y |
— |
— |
— |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Arthur et al 17 |
Clinical |
2,200 |
— |
— |
83% at 10 y |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Qvist et al 18,23 |
Clinical |
442 |
— |
50% at 6.1 y |
50% at 7.0 y |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Christensen 19 |
Survey |
731 |
— |
7.3 y |
13.8 y |
— |
20.6 y |
12.7 y |
20.6 y |
20.6 y |
20.6 y |
22.2 y |
— |
— |
Smales 20 |
Clinical |
768 |
— |
— |
72.8% at 15 y |
72.6% at 15 y |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Maryniuk and Kaplan 21 |
Survey |
571 |
— |
— |
11.2 y |
6.1 y |
12.7 y |
— |
— |
— |
14.7 y |
12.7 y |
— |
— |
Robbins and Summit 22 |
Clinical |
128 |
— |
— |
— |
50% at 11.5 y |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Mount 24 |
Clinical |
1,283 |
93% at 7 y |
— |
—— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Schwartz et al 25 |
Clinical |
791 |
— |
— |
—— |
— |
11 y |
— |
— |
— |
10.3 y |
— |
8.5 y |
— |
Walton et al 26 |
Clinical |
451 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
11.2 y |
— |
— |
— |
7.1 y |
6.3 y |
8.2 y |
— |
Kerschbaum 27 |
Clinical |
9,737 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
91.5% at 8 y |
— |
— |
— |
Leempoel et al 28 |
Clinical |
10,000 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
98% at 10 y |
95.3% at 10 y † |
82% at 10 y |
— |
Swift and Friedman 29 |
Clinical |
372 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
50% at 6.5 y |
Burke and Lucarotti 30 |
Clinical |
2,562 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
53% at 11 y |
Bernardo et al 31 |
Clinical |
1,748 |
— |
50.0%–93.6% at 7 y † |
90.5% at 7 y |
81.8% at 7 y |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
—, not included in study. *A complilation and interpretation of five clinical studies. †Average of survival rates for anterior, premolar, and molar crowns. †Inversely varied with no. of surfaces restored.
Читать дальше