| Popis: |
Objective: The aim of this study, based on individual participant data from several studies, was to investigate the influence of materials related to Failure of class IV direct resin composite restorations and reason of failure. We conducted a search resulting in 5 longitudinal studies of class IV direct resin composite restorations with follow-up between two to twenty years. Main reasons for failure were luck of retention and fracture. Materials and Methods: This is a review study. The research sources utilized were PubMed, Google scholar, MEDLINE and Complutense university Library. The keywords which were selected based on Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and PICOS criteria were Class IV Direct Composite Restoration , Failure of Class IV Direct Composite Restoration, longevity of Class IV Direct Composite Restoration and survival rate of Class IV Direct Composite Restoration. For the period from 2010 to 2019. The number of subjects who restored with Nano filled resin composite (FiltekSupream) was 12, 13 subjects restored with Nano hybrid (Ceram X Duo), 13 subjects restored with polyacid modified resin composite (compomer), 7 subjects restored with resin-modified glass ionomer cement, 8 subjects restored with universal composites (Herculite XR), 16 subjects restored with universal composites (Charisma), 7 subjects restored with Highly Filled Hybrid Composite (TPH), 11 subjects restored with non specific resin composite and 2 subjects restored with microhybrid composite, Amaris (Voco). Results: Nanofilled resin composite (FiltekSupream) and Nano hybrid (Ceram X Duo) both have the same longevity between two to five years in direct class IV composite, loss of restorations for lack of retention and fracture of restorations is the main reason of failure for both. Universal composites (Herculite XR) the most reason of failure in this type of composite is the anatomic form change, in the other hand, universal composites (Charisma) the esthetic reasons are the main reasons of failure. Both of them have long longevity until fifteen years. Polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement have the same reason of failure that is restorations fracture in seven year more or less. Highly Filled Hybrid Composite (TPH) and microhybrid composite, Amaris (Voco) loss of restoration for lack of retention is the main reason of failure for both. However, they have short longevity between two to three years. Conclusion: Three things decide the success rate, the survival rates and the longevity of direct class IV composite restorations, the dentist, the material and the patient. The study show failure reasons for different composite risen materials and the longevity. Fracture of restorations and loss of restorations for lack of retention are the most failure reasons. Patients must be educated about the expected life of these restorations as well as their advantages and disadvantages, so they can make an informed decision on a treatment option. There is lack of information about the longevity, survival rates, failure reasons of class IV direct composite in last 10 years. This study evaluate the reason of failure regarding to the studies that we showed. |
