PDF herunterladen
Zahnmedizin up2date 2016; 10(01): 43-64
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-107282
Zahnerhaltung, Prävention und Restauration
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Ausarbeitung und Politur von Kompositrestaurationen

Diana Wolff
,
Hans-Jörg Staehle
,
Simona Schick
,
Cornelia Frese
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
02. Februar 2016 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints Alle Artikel dieser Rubrik

Einleitung

Der vorliegende Artikel präsentiert eine Übersicht über den aktuellen Stand der Feinkorrektur, Ausarbeitung, Finierung und Politur von Kompositrestaurationen. Beschrieben werden die Möglichkeiten der Optimierung von gut zugänglichen Oberflächen, beispielsweise okklusalen oder fazialen, sowie die Bearbeitung schwer zugänglicher Bereiche wie marginale Ränder und approximale Flächen. Dargestellt werden die aktuellen Empfehlungen zur Fertigstellung von Kompositrestaurationen sowie die verschiedenen Möglichkeiten einschließlich ihrer Vor- und Nachteile.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 943-949
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Astvaldsdottir A, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults — a systematic review. J Dent 2015; 43: 934-954
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beck F, Lettner S, Graf A et al. Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996–2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 958-985
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations — a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 481-495
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Frese C, Schiller P, Staehle HJ et al. Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a 5-year follow-up. J Dent 2013; 41: 979-985
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Staehle HJ, Wohlrab T, Saure D et al. A 6.5-year clinical follow-up of direct resin composite buildups in the posterior dentition: Introduction of a new minimally invasive restorative method. J Dent 2015; 43: 1365-1370
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wolff D, Kraus T, Schach C et al. Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a clinical evaluation of survival and quality parameters. J Dent 2010; 38: 1001-1009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Staehle HJ, Wolff D, Frese C. More conservative dentistry: clinical long-term results of direct composite resin restorations. Quintessence 2015; 46: 373-380
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Frese C, Wolff D, Staehle HJ. Proximal box elevation with resin composite and the dogma of biological width: clinical R2-technique and critical review. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 22-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. Interoperator variability during polishing. Quintessence Int 2006; 37: 183-190
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51: 379-397
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hellwig E, Klimek J, Attin T. Einführung in die Zahnerhaltung. München: Urban & Fischer; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Schmidseder J, Munz T. Ästhetische Zahnmedizin. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2009
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Frankenberger R. Adhäsiv-Fibel: Adhäsive Zahnmedizin. Wege zum klinischen Erfolg. Balingen: Spitta; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 1993; 124: 68-72
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kawai K, Leinfelder KF. Effect of surface-penetrating sealant on composite wear. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 108-113
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ramos RP, Chinelatti MA, Chimello DT et al. Assessing microleakage in resin composite restorations rebonded with a surface sealant and three low-viscosity resin systems. Quintessence Int 2002; 33: 450-456
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Kumada A, Matsuka Y, Mine A et al. Influence of resin coating materials on Porphyromonas gingivalis attachment. Dent Mater J 2012; 31: 86-91
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zimmerli B, Koch T, Flury S et al. The influence of toothbrushing and coffee staining on different composite surface coatings. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 469-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mei L, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC et al. Influence of surface roughness on streptococcal adhesion forces to composite resins. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 770-778
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pereira CA, Eskelson E, Cavalli V et al. Streptococcus mutans biofilm adhesion on composite resin surfaces after different finishing and polishing techniques. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 311-317
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997; 13: 258-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004; 196: 42-45 discussion 31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Rousson V. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 146-165
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Yap AU, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing/polishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 456-461
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yazici AR, Tuncer D, Antonson S et al. Effects of delayed finishing/polishing on surface roughness, hardness and gloss of tooth-coloured restorative materials. Eur J Dent 2010; 4: 50-56
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cenci MS, Venturini D, Pereira-Cenci T et al. The effect of polishing techniques and time on the surface characteristics and sealing ability of resin composite restorations after one-year storage. Oper Dent 2008; 33: 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kaminedi RR, Penumatsa NV, Priya T et al. The influence of finishing/polishing time and cooling system on surface roughness and microhardness of two different types of composite resin restorations. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014; 4: 99-104
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Jung M, Eichelberger K, Klimek J. Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one-step and multiple-step polishing. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 347-355
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Maresca C, Pimenta LA, Heymann HO et al. Effect of finishing instrumentation on the marginal integrity of resin-based composite restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010; 22: 104-112
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 St-Pierre L, Bergeron C, Qian F et al. Effect of polishing direction on the marginal adaptation of composite resin restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25: 125-138
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lang NP, Saxer CM, Burgin W et al. Marginal fit of dental restorations and the periodontium in Swiss army recruits. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2001; 111: 538-544
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Chen JT, Burch JG, Beck FM et al. Periodontal attachment loss associated with proximal tooth restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 57: 416-420
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gilmore N, Sheiham A. Overhanging dental restorations and periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1971; 42: 8-12
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hakkarainen K, Ainamo J. Influence of overhanging posterior tooth restorations on alveolar bone height in adults. J Clin Periodontol 1980; 7: 114-120
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lang NP, Kiel RA, Anderhalden K. Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins. J Clin Periodontol 1983; 10: 563-578
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Than A, Duguid R, McKendrick AJ. Relationship between restorations and the level of the periodontal attachment. J Clin Periodontol 1982; 9: 193-202
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ et al. A radiographic and scanning electron microscopic study of approximal margins of Class II resin composite restorations placed in vivo. J Dent 1998; 26: 319-327
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Pelka M et al. Internal adaptation and overhang formation of direct Class II resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 1999; 3: 208-215
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ et al. Restoration techniques and marginal overhang in Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 2009; 37: 712-717
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ et al. Proximal marginal overhang of composite restorations in relation to placement technique of separation rings. Oper Dent 2012; 37: 21-27
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Mullejans R, Badawi MO, Raab WH et al. An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 122-126
    Google Scholar
  • 43 McLundie AC, Murray FD. Comparison of methods used in finishing composite resin — a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1974; 31: 163-171
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Givens EG, Gwinnett AJ, Boucher LJ. Removal of overhanging amalgam: a comparative study of three instruments. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 52: 815-820
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Lim KC, Ong GH. Methods of proximal amalgam overhang removal — a comparison of different techniques. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1989; 18: 599-602
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Spreafico R, Roulet JF. Posterior Esthetics with Composite Resins. In: Roulet JF, Wilson NHF, Fuzzi M, Hrsg. Advances in Operative Dentistry. Challenges of the Future. Illinois: Quintessence; 2001: 225-236
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Kocher T, Plagmann HC. The diamond-coated sonic scaler tip. Part I: Oscillation pattern of different sonic scaler inserts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1997; 17: 392-399
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Blanchard JS. The periodontal curet and the ultrasonic scaler. Their effectiveness in removing overhangs from amalgam restorations. Dent Hyg 1984; 58: 450-454
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ et al. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 1998; 26: 555-562
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Spinks GC, Carson RE, Hancock EB et al. An SEM study of overhang removal methods. J Periodontol 1986; 57: 632-636
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Anami LC, Pereira CA, Guerra E et al. Morphology and bacterial colonisation of tooth/ceramic restoration interface after different cement excess removal techniques. J Dent 2012; 40: 742-749
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2004; 16: 211-217 quiz 218
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Kup E, Tirlet G, Attal JP. The scalpel finishing technique: a tooth-friendly way to finish dental composites in anterior teeth. Int J Esthet Dent 2015; 10: 228-245
    Google Scholar