It was decided to conduct a cross-sectional study among dental practitioners in Sweden who treat adult patients in order to document the reasons for the replacement of composite, amalgam, and glass ionomer restorations and to compare the results with those obtained about 16 years earlier. The ages of the unsuccessful repairs were also noted for future reference. In all three kinds of restorations, it was the clinical diagnosis of secondary caries that was the most common cause for their replacement. Composite and glass ionomer restorations had considerably greater rates of diagnosis than amalgam restorations, which had a significantly lower rate. There were no statistically significant changes in the diagnosis of secondary caries between composite and glass ionomer restorations, according to the findings. When comparing the current findings with those obtained 16 years ago, it was discovered that there have been significant shifts in the causes for composite repair replacement. There was a significant difference between the relative frequency of replacements owing to composite degradation/wear and the relative frequency of replacements due to bulk and marginal fractures, with the former decreasing and the latter increasing. During the 16-year period, the reasons for replacing amalgam restorations had remained much the same as before. One of the most unexpected findings was that half of the glass ionomer restorations restored were diagnosed with secondary caries. It was only for a small number of unsuccessful restorations that the age of the failed restorations was recorded. The median age of composite restorations was about 6 years, nearly 9 years for amalgam restorations, and slightly more than 3 years for glass ionomer restorations.
Citation : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9063229/