Direct
Restorations ("fillings")
Direct Restorations are
custom formed in the mouth by your dentist, and placed directly into a treated
tooth without any intervening laboratory steps.
Selecting the appropriate
direct restoration to meet the needs of the patient and the individual tooth
depends on a large variety of factors. Each material has different
advantages and disadvantages as a consequence of different properties. The
weight of scientific evidence is that all of these materials are
safe and effective for their intended use.
The following chart illustrates
some common considerations your dentist takes into account when determining
which material is best for a particular tooth needing a Direct Restoration:
Comparison
of Direct Restorative Dental Materials
FACTORS
|
SILVER
AMALGAM
|
COMPOSITE
RESIN (Direct)
|
GLASS
IONOMER
|
RESIN-
IONOMER
|
General
Description |
A
mixture of mercury and silver alloy powder that forms a hard solid
metal filling. Self-hardening at mouth temperature. |
A
mixture of tiny glass filler particles and acrylic that forms a solid
tooth-colored restoration. Self- or light–hardening at mouth
temperature. |
Self-hardening
mixture of fluoride containing glass powder and organic acid that
forms a solid tooth-colored restoration able to release fluoride. |
Self
or light- hardening mixture of sub-micron glass filler with fluoride
containing glass powder and acrylic resin that forms a solid tooth
colored restoration able to release fluoride. |
Principal
Uses |
Dental
fillings and heavily loaded back tooth restorations. |
Esthetic
dental fillings and veneers. |
Small
non-load bearing fillings, cavity liners and cements for crowns and
bridges. |
Small
non-load bearing fillings, cavity liners and cements for crowns and
bridges. |
Leakage
and Recurrent
Decay |
Leakage
is moderate, but recurrent decay is no more prevalent than other
materials. |
Leakage
low when properly bonded to underlying tooth; recurrent decay depends
on maintenance of the tooth-material bond. |
Leakage
is generally low; recurrent decay is comparable to other direct
materials, fluoride release may be beneficial for patients at high
risk for decay. |
Leakage
is low when properly bonded to the underlying tooth; recurrent decay
is comparable to other direct materials, fluoride release may be
beneficial for patients at high risk for decay. |
Overall
Durability |
Good
to excellent in large load-bearing restorations. |
Good
to fair in small-to-moderate size restorations free of biting forces.
Fair to poor durability when subject to biting forces. |
Good
to fair in non load-bearing restorations, but poor in load-bearing
areas (biting surfaces). |
Fair
to good in non load-bearing restorations; poor in load-bearing areas
(biting surfaces). |
Cavity
Preparation Considerations |
Requires
removal of tooth structure for adequate retention and thickness of the
filling. |
Adhesive
bonding often permits removing less tooth structure. |
Adhesive
bonding usually permits removing less tooth structure. |
Adhesive
bonding usually permits removing less tooth structure. |
Clinical
Considerations |
Tolerant
to a wide range of clinical placement conditions, moderately tolerant
to the presence of moisture during placement. |
Must
be placed in a well-controlled field of operation that is totally
& completely dry. But very little
tolerance to presence of moisture during placement, which compromises
bond strength to the tooth and increases risk of leaking or recurrence
of dental caries.. |
Resistance
to Wear |
Highly
resistant to wear. |
Moderately
resistant, but less so than silver amalgam. |
Poor
resistance to wear when placed on chewing surfaces. Not well suited to such
applications. |
Resistance
to Fracture |
Brittle,
subject to chipping at filling edges, but with proper placement
technique has good bulk strength in larger
high- load restorations for back teeth. |
Moderate
resistance to fracture in high-load restorations. |
Low
resistance to fracture. |
Low
to moderate resistance to fracture. |
Biocompatibility |
Well-tolerated
with rare occurrences of allergenic respose. |
Post-Placement
Sensitivity |
Early
sensitivity to hot and cold possible. |
Sensitivity
to heat & cold rarely occur. A more common problem when
material is not placed properly or when bond of restoration to the underlying
tooth fails. |
Low. |
Occurrence
of sensitivity highly dependent on ability to adequately bond the
restoration to the underlying tooth. Rarely a problem with modern
materials. |
Esthetics |
Silver
or gray metallic color does not mimic tooth color. |
Close
to natural tooth color and translucency, but can be subject to staining
and discoloration over time. (Porcelain
restorations have more natural appearance). |
Mimics
natural tooth color, but lacks translucency making restorations look
opaque and "paste-like". |
Mimics
natural tooth color, but lacks translucency making restorations look
opaque and "paste-like". |
Relative
Cost to Patient |
Generally
lower; actual cost of fillings depends on their size. |
Moderate;
actual cost of fillings depends on their size and technique. |
Moderate;
actual cost of fillings depends on their size and technique. |
Moderate;
actual cost of fillings depends on their size and technique. |
Average
Number of Visits To Complete |
One. |
One. |
One. |
One. |
Comparison
of Restorative Dental Materials Reference List
1. US
Public Health Service. "Dental Amalgam: A Scientific Review and Recommended
Public Health Service Strategy for Research, Education and Regulation."
January 1993 (Section on Dental Materials for Restoring Posterior Teeth.)
2.
US Public Health Service. "Dental Amalgam: A Scientific Review and
Recommended Public Health Service Strategy for Research, Education and
Regulation." January 1993 (Table 2: Selected Characteristics of Posterior
Restorative Materials.)
3.
American Dental Association, Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and
Equipment. "Choosing Intracoronal Restorative Materials." JADA 1994;
125:102-3.
4.
American Dental Association, Council on Scientific Affairs; Council on Dental
Benefit Programs. "Statement on Posterior Resin-Based Composites."
JADA 1998; 129:1627-8.
5.
Douglass CW. "Future Needs for Dental Restorative Materials." Adv Dent
Res 1992; 6:4-6.
6.
Reich E. "Risks and Benefits of Direct Restorative Materials as
Alternatives to Amalgam." Dental Amalgam and Alternative Direct Restorative
Materials, Oral Health, Division of Noncommunicable Diseases, World Health
Organization, Geneva 1997; 1-15.
7.
American Dental Association, Division of Communications. "Answers to Your
Questions About Silver Fillings." 2000.
8. American
Dental Association, Division of Communications. "Dental Materials."
1993.
9.
US Public Health Service, "Update Statement by the U.S. Public Health
Service on the Safety of Dental Amalgam." Annex A and Appendix B, 1995
& 2001.
10.
Burgess JO, Norling BK, Rawls HR, Ong JL. "Directly Placed Esthetic
Restorative Materials - The Continuum." Compendium 1996; 17:731-748.
11.
US Food and Drug Administration, "Consumer Update: Dental Amalgams February
2002." http://www.fda.gov./cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html, February 8, 2002.
12. Mackert,
J.R., Berglund, A. "Mercury Exposure from Dental Amalgam Fillings: Absorbed
Dose and the Potential for Adverse Health Effects." Ctir Rev Oral Biol Med
1997; 8:410-436.
13.
Smith, C.T., Gold as a Historic Standard and its Role for the Future, Operative
Dentistry 2001;Suppliment 6:105-110.
14.
Peutzfeldt, A., Indirect Resin and Ceramic Systems, Operative Dentistry
2001:Suppliment 6:153-176.
NOTE:
The information in this chart is provided to help dentists discuss the
attributes of commonly used dental restorative materials with their patients.
The chart is a simple overview of the subject based on the current dental
literature. It
is not intended to be comprehensive.
The attributes of a particular restorative material will vary from case
to case depending on a number of factors. Chart
above modified from a chart published by the American Dental Association, 2002.