We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 38 (2007), No. 6     30. May 2007
Quintessence Int 38 (2007), No. 6  (30.05.2007)

Page 511-514, PubMed:17625635

Cross-sectional radiographic survey of amalgam and resin-based composite posterior restorations
Levin, Liran / Coval, Marius / Geiger, Selly B.
Objective: To compare the failure rate of posterior interproximal amalgam restorations to resin-based composite restorations in a random young adult population.
Method and Materials: Bilateral bitewing radiographs of 459 young adults were screened. A total of 14,140 interproximal surfaces were examined, recorded, and statistically analyzed. Rate of failure was determined by the number of restorations with radiographic evidence of secondary caries and/or overhanging margins.
Results: Of the 650 restored interproximal surfaces (5% of all clearly demarcated interproximal surfaces), 86 (13%) demonstrated distinct interproximal secondary caries and 22 (3%) had overhanging margins. Of the 557 amalgam and 93 resin-based composite interproximal restorations, secondary caries were shown in 46 (8%) and 40 (43%), respectively, and overhanging margins in 21 (4%) and only 1 (1%), respectively. Generally, when secondary caries and overhanging margins were considered, the failure rate of amalgam and resin-based composite interproximal restorations was 12% and 44%, respectively.
Conclusions: Higher failure rates were observed in resin-based composite restorations than in amalgam restorations. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure. Overhanging margins were not a primary factor in restoration failure. The vast use of posterior interproximal resin-based composite restorations should be reconsidered, and their limited long-term performance should be kept in mind.

Keywords: amalgam, bitewing radiograph, failure rate, interproximal posterior restorations, resin composite