A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years

Kevin J. Donly, Mark Jensen, Peter Triolo, Daniel Chan

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Concept indirect posterior heat- and pressure-polymerized restorative material and compare it to the performance of cast gold. Method and materials: Inlays and onlays placed in a standardized manner as part of a clinical study were evaluated at 7 years. Eighteen patients (45%) who had received 36 Concept restorations returned and were evaluated using the US Public Health Service criteria. Restorations were evaluated in seven categories as the percentage receiving Alfa (ideal), Bravo (clinically acceptable), or Charlie (clinically unacceptable) scores or as restoration no longer present. Fourteen of the restorations were cemented with Heliobond bonding resin and 13 were cemented with Special Bond bonding resin. Each patient also received a cast-gold restoration for comparison. Results: Concept restorations received scores of Alfa at the following rates: color match, 64%; interfacial staining, 47%; secondary caries, 75%; wear, 58%; marginal integrity, 64%; surface texture, 72%; and axial contour, 58% (in 14% this category was not applicable because they were Class I restorations). Nine Concept restorations (25%) were no longer present. Fifteen of 18 gold restorations were present at this recall. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in any categories between the two bonding resins used with Concept restorative material and the gold restorations. Conclusion: At 7years in vivo, the Concept indirect posterior restorative system yields clinically acceptable restorations, particularly in premolars.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-168
Number of pages6
JournalQuintessence International
Volume30
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 1 1999

Fingerprint

Inlays
Composite Resins
Gold
tetrachloroisophthalonitrile
United States Public Health Service
Bicuspid
Color
Hot Temperature
Staining and Labeling
Pressure

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years. / Donly, Kevin J.; Jensen, Mark; Triolo, Peter; Chan, Daniel.

In: Quintessence International, Vol. 30, No. 3, 01.03.1999, p. 163-168.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Donly, Kevin J. ; Jensen, Mark ; Triolo, Peter ; Chan, Daniel. / A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years. In: Quintessence International. 1999 ; Vol. 30, No. 3. pp. 163-168.
@article{458747cb512b4af6a8378d2dbae3cd95,
title = "A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years",
abstract = "Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Concept indirect posterior heat- and pressure-polymerized restorative material and compare it to the performance of cast gold. Method and materials: Inlays and onlays placed in a standardized manner as part of a clinical study were evaluated at 7 years. Eighteen patients (45{\%}) who had received 36 Concept restorations returned and were evaluated using the US Public Health Service criteria. Restorations were evaluated in seven categories as the percentage receiving Alfa (ideal), Bravo (clinically acceptable), or Charlie (clinically unacceptable) scores or as restoration no longer present. Fourteen of the restorations were cemented with Heliobond bonding resin and 13 were cemented with Special Bond bonding resin. Each patient also received a cast-gold restoration for comparison. Results: Concept restorations received scores of Alfa at the following rates: color match, 64{\%}; interfacial staining, 47{\%}; secondary caries, 75{\%}; wear, 58{\%}; marginal integrity, 64{\%}; surface texture, 72{\%}; and axial contour, 58{\%} (in 14{\%} this category was not applicable because they were Class I restorations). Nine Concept restorations (25{\%}) were no longer present. Fifteen of 18 gold restorations were present at this recall. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in any categories between the two bonding resins used with Concept restorative material and the gold restorations. Conclusion: At 7years in vivo, the Concept indirect posterior restorative system yields clinically acceptable restorations, particularly in premolars.",
author = "Donly, {Kevin J.} and Mark Jensen and Peter Triolo and Daniel Chan",
year = "1999",
month = "3",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "163--168",
journal = "Quintessence International",
issn = "0033-6572",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years

AU - Donly, Kevin J.

AU - Jensen, Mark

AU - Triolo, Peter

AU - Chan, Daniel

PY - 1999/3/1

Y1 - 1999/3/1

N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Concept indirect posterior heat- and pressure-polymerized restorative material and compare it to the performance of cast gold. Method and materials: Inlays and onlays placed in a standardized manner as part of a clinical study were evaluated at 7 years. Eighteen patients (45%) who had received 36 Concept restorations returned and were evaluated using the US Public Health Service criteria. Restorations were evaluated in seven categories as the percentage receiving Alfa (ideal), Bravo (clinically acceptable), or Charlie (clinically unacceptable) scores or as restoration no longer present. Fourteen of the restorations were cemented with Heliobond bonding resin and 13 were cemented with Special Bond bonding resin. Each patient also received a cast-gold restoration for comparison. Results: Concept restorations received scores of Alfa at the following rates: color match, 64%; interfacial staining, 47%; secondary caries, 75%; wear, 58%; marginal integrity, 64%; surface texture, 72%; and axial contour, 58% (in 14% this category was not applicable because they were Class I restorations). Nine Concept restorations (25%) were no longer present. Fifteen of 18 gold restorations were present at this recall. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in any categories between the two bonding resins used with Concept restorative material and the gold restorations. Conclusion: At 7years in vivo, the Concept indirect posterior restorative system yields clinically acceptable restorations, particularly in premolars.

AB - Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Concept indirect posterior heat- and pressure-polymerized restorative material and compare it to the performance of cast gold. Method and materials: Inlays and onlays placed in a standardized manner as part of a clinical study were evaluated at 7 years. Eighteen patients (45%) who had received 36 Concept restorations returned and were evaluated using the US Public Health Service criteria. Restorations were evaluated in seven categories as the percentage receiving Alfa (ideal), Bravo (clinically acceptable), or Charlie (clinically unacceptable) scores or as restoration no longer present. Fourteen of the restorations were cemented with Heliobond bonding resin and 13 were cemented with Special Bond bonding resin. Each patient also received a cast-gold restoration for comparison. Results: Concept restorations received scores of Alfa at the following rates: color match, 64%; interfacial staining, 47%; secondary caries, 75%; wear, 58%; marginal integrity, 64%; surface texture, 72%; and axial contour, 58% (in 14% this category was not applicable because they were Class I restorations). Nine Concept restorations (25%) were no longer present. Fifteen of 18 gold restorations were present at this recall. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in any categories between the two bonding resins used with Concept restorative material and the gold restorations. Conclusion: At 7years in vivo, the Concept indirect posterior restorative system yields clinically acceptable restorations, particularly in premolars.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033087822&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033087822&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 30

SP - 163

EP - 168

JO - Quintessence International

JF - Quintessence International

SN - 0033-6572

IS - 3

ER -