LITERATURE Review COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS - Long term controlled clinical studies Study study design obervation period results (YFR) Mair, 1998 longitudinal 10Y 0.7% Mertz-Fairhurst et al, 1991 longitudinal 10Y 2.0% Raskin et al, 1999 longitudinal 10Y 4-5% Wilder et al, 1999 longitudinal 17Y 1.4% Gaengler et al, 2001 longitudinal 10Y 2.5% Palessen & Qvist, 2003 longitudinal 11Y 0.7% da Rosa Rodolpho et al, 2006 longitudinal 17Y 2.04% Study study design obervation period results (YFR) Mair, 1998 longitudinal 10Y 0.7% Mertz-Fairhurst et al, 1991 longitudinal 10Y 2.0% Raskin et al, 1999 longitudinal 10Y 4-5% Wilder et al, 1999 longitudinal 17Y 1.4% Gaengler et al, 2001 longitudinal 10Y 2.5% Palessen & Qvist, 2003 longitudinal 11Y 0.7% da Rosa Rodolpho et al, 2006 longitudinal 17Y 2.04%

LITERATURE Review Class II Sandwich GIC/ Resin Composite - In vivo STUDIES Study n. of restorations observ. period results Gaengler et al, GIC/RC Class II10 Years 74.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures++ da Rosa Rodolpho et al, GIC/RC Class II 17 Years 65.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures ++ Study n. of restorations observ. period results Gaengler et al, GIC/RC Class II10 Years 74.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures++ da Rosa Rodolpho et al, GIC/RC Class II 17 Years 65.2% survival USPHS failures = fractures ++

LITERATURE Review Class II Sandwich with rmGIC - In vitro STUDIES Study exp. protocol level of evidence results Kosmas Tolidis et al, 1998 volum. shrinkage rmGIC liner reduces shrinkage Wibowo & Stockton, 2001 microleakage rmGIC liner < FRC liner Dietrich et al, 1999 marg. adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > GIC or full Cp (3M, ESPE,Vivadent,GC, Dentpsly) Dietrich et al, 2000 marg. Adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > Full CP ( Z100/Vitremer) Study exp. protocol level of evidence results Kosmas Tolidis et al, 1998 volum. shrinkage rmGIC liner reduces shrinkage Wibowo & Stockton, 2001 microleakage rmGIC liner < FRC liner Dietrich et al, 1999 marg. adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > GIC or full Cp (3M, ESPE,Vivadent,GC, Dentpsly) Dietrich et al, 2000 marg. Adaptation (SEM) rmGIC > Full CP ( Z100/Vitremer)

LITERATURE Review Class II Sandwich with rmGIC - In vitro STUDIES Study exp. protocol level of evidence results Dietschi et al, 2002 marg. adaptation (SEM) Compomer > Full Cp (Dyract)Closed sandwich Config. !!! Study exp. protocol level of evidence results Dietschi et al, 2002 marg. adaptation (SEM) Compomer > Full Cp (Dyract)Closed sandwich Config. !!!

LITERATURE Review Sandwich with rmGIC - In vivo STUDIES Study n. of restorations observ. period results Lindberg et al, 2000 n= 2o class II (pm)1 Monthbetter adapt. in E &D SEM marg. adapt.for PMRC / RC Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2002 n= 40 class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E&D SEM marg. adapt.rmGIC / RC Opdam et al, 2007 n= 458 class II9 Yearshigher failure rate USPHSwith rmGIC Study n. of restorations observ. period results Lindberg et al, 2000 n= 2o class II (pm)1 Monthbetter adapt. in E &D SEM marg. adapt.for PMRC / RC Andersson-Wenckert et al, 2002 n= 40 class II (pm) 1 Month better adapt. in E&D SEM marg. adapt.rmGIC / RC Opdam et al, 2007 n= 458 class II9 Yearshigher failure rate USPHSwith rmGIC

LITERATURE Review Sandwich Class II Vitremer/Z100 - In vivo STUDIES Study n. of restorations observ. period results Van Dijken et al, open sandwich 3 Years 2.5% tooth fractures class II & 6 exp. cond.4% dissolution rmGIC Andersson-Wenckert et al, open sandwich 6-7 Years 19%/34% failures class II & 6 exp. cond. dissolution rmGIC ++ failure = tooth & rest. fractures <1% 3Y 3.16% 6Y 4.85% Study n. of restorations observ. period results Van Dijken et al, open sandwich 3 Years 2.5% tooth fractures class II & 6 exp. cond.4% dissolution rmGIC Andersson-Wenckert et al, open sandwich 6-7 Years 19%/34% failures class II & 6 exp. cond. dissolution rmGIC ++ failure = tooth & rest. fractures <1% 3Y 3.16% 6Y 4.85%

LITERATURE Review Class II Sandwich with FRC - In vitro STUDIES Study exp. protocol level of evidence results Chuang et al, 2004 marg. adaptation (SEM) thin FRC > Dewaele et al, 2006 marg. adaptation (LM) gaps if: (12 exp. rubbery liners) flow, flexibility, shrinkage Study exp. protocol level of evidence results Chuang et al, 2004 marg. adaptation (SEM) thin FRC > Dewaele et al, 2006 marg. adaptation (LM) gaps if: (12 exp. rubbery liners) flow, flexibility, shrinkage

LITERATURE Review Class II Sandwich with FRC - In vivo STUDIES Study Comparisonobserv. period results Ernst et al, 2003 Class II with / without flow 2Yno difference Lindberg et al, 2005 Class II with / without flow § 1mno difference Efes et al, 2006 Class II with / without flow 2Y no difference Study Comparisonobserv. period results Ernst et al, 2003 Class II with / without flow 2Yno difference Lindberg et al, 2005 Class II with / without flow § 1mno difference Efes et al, 2006 Class II with / without flow 2Y no difference

CHOICE between Direct & Indirect Restorations: Literature Review Direct vs Indirect Restorations in Medium Size Cavities

LITERATURE Review Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Medium Size Cavities Study results van Dijken JW, 2000 The difference in failure rate between the resin composite direct technique and the inlay technique was not large, indicating that the more time-consuming and expensive inlay technique may not be justified Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF, 2000 In this study the direct inlay technique gave no clinical advantage over conventional direct restorations Pallesen U, Qvist V, 2003 No significant difference between composite fillings and composite inlays Study results van Dijken JW, 2000 The difference in failure rate between the resin composite direct technique and the inlay technique was not large, indicating that the more time-consuming and expensive inlay technique may not be justified Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF, 2000 In this study the direct inlay technique gave no clinical advantage over conventional direct restorations Pallesen U, Qvist V, 2003 No significant difference between composite fillings and composite inlays

LITERATURE Review Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Medium Size Cavities Study results Spreafico RC, Dietschi D, Krejci I, 2005The clinical performance and the marginal adaptation did not show significative differences Study results Spreafico RC, Dietschi D, Krejci I, 2005The clinical performance and the marginal adaptation did not show significative differences

CHOICE between Direct & Indirect Restorations: Literature Review Direct vs Indirect Restorations in Large Cavities

LITERATURE Review Inlay vs Direct composite Restoration - Large Size Cavities Study results Klaiber and Haller, 1989 Luted restorations permit a better marginal adaptation and seal when compared to the direct composite resin restorations Milleding, 1992 Agosto,1993 Lida et al, 2003 To prevent marginal microfracture, an adhesive inlay restoration is preferable for a large class II cavity van Dijken JW The direct inlay / onlay technique is recommended to be used in class II cavities of high caries risk patients with cervical margins placed in dentin Study results Klaiber and Haller, 1989 Luted restorations permit a better marginal adaptation and seal when compared to the direct composite resin restorations Milleding, 1992 Agosto,1993 Lida et al, 2003 To prevent marginal microfracture, an adhesive inlay restoration is preferable for a large class II cavity van Dijken JW The direct inlay / onlay technique is recommended to be used in class II cavities of high caries risk patients with cervical margins placed in dentin

Clinical trials : Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study BRILLANT 1 y % 0% Fülleman et al BRILLANT 2Y 30 80% 10% Haas et al BRILLANT-ESTILUX 1Y % 3.4% Thordrup et al BRILLANT 3 y 71 92% 2.7% Wassel et al BRILLANT-APH 5Y %0% Wiedmer et al. 1997

Clinical trials : Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study BRILLANT 5Y % 0% Van Dijken et al.1996 BRILLANT 5 y 15 85% 3% Thordrup et al VITADUR N 15 85% 3% CEREC C OS % 1.5% OCCLUSIN 3 y % 1.1% Wendt et al. 1992

Clinical trials : Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study TETRIC - PERTAC 2 y 45 93% 3.5% Schleibenbogen et al TETRIC - PERTAC 3Y 30 93% 2.3% Manhart et al APH 1Y % 3.4% Krejci et al TETRIC - Z Y 50 94% 1.2% Leirskar et al. 2003

Clinical trials : Direct Resin Composites Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study Annual Failure Rate range = 0-10% « Without extremes » range %

Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study SR ISOSIT- CONCEPT 1y % 11.8% Bessing et al SR ISOSIT -CONCEPT 7Y 36 75% 3.6% Donly et al SR ISOSIT -CONCEPT 11Y % 1.6% Pallesen et al VISIO-GEM 6y % 9.8% Krämer et al Clinical trials : Laboratory Resin Composites

Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study TARGIS 1.5Y % 0% Monaco et al TARGIS 1Y % 9.8% Yilmaz et al TARGIS 2Y (0.5-4Y) % 0% Kukrer et al SIGNUM 3Y % 0.86% Barone et al Clinical trials : Laboratory Resin Composites

Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study SR ISOSIT 11Y 84 83% 1.54% Palessen et al, 2003 BRILLANT 28 84% 1.45% ESTILUX 28 TPH direct 3.5Y 2x22 100% 0% Spreafico et al, 2005 indirect 100% 0% Clinical trials : Laboratory Resin Composites

Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study Clinical trials : Laboratory Resin Composites 9 studies YFR = 0% – 11.8% 0% - 3.6% (without extremes)

Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study MIRAGE 2y % 2.1% Jensen et al MIRAGE 3Y % 1.3% Hoglung et al MIRAGE 4Y % 0% Friedl et al MIRAGE 6Y 58 88% 2% van Dijken et al 1998 MICROBOND-FORTUNE 10y % 0.3% Fuzzi et al Clinical trials : Feldspathic Porcelains

Clinical trials : Feldspatic Porcelains Material Duration n= survival YFR study MIRAGE 5Y % 1.6% Molin et al, 2000 CEREC % " EMPRESS % -- GOLD % -- COSMOTECH II 8Y 45 80% 2.5% Hayashi et al, 2000 Diff. FP brands 3Y 47 90% 3.6% Manhart et al, 2000 EMPRESS % --

Clinical trials : Feldspatic Porcelains Material Duration n= survival YFR study LFC DUCERAM 2.1Y 45 Gemalanaz et al, 2001 (3-46m) LC: rmGIC 77% 15.7 LC: composite 87% studies YFR = 0% – 6.2%

Material Observation period no of restoration survival rate annual f. rate study EMPRESS 1y % 1.3% Studer et al EMPRESS 4.5Y % 1% Fradeani et al EMPRESS 6Y % 0.9% Lehner et al EMPRESS 4y 96 93% 1.8% Krämer et al EMPRESS 6Y 39 93% 1.2% Krämer et al % marginal ditching Clinical trials : Pressed Ceramics

Material Duration n= survival YFR study EMPRESS 4Y 21100% -- Barghi et al, 2002 EMPRESS 2Y 86100% -- Coehlo Santos et al, 2004 LFC DUCERAM 86100% EMPRESS 3Y % -- Fabianelli et al, 2006 EMPRESS 4Y 13093% 1.75% Naeselius et al EMPRESS 12Y 9684% 1.33% Franckenberger et al EMPRESS 6Y 6494% 1.05% Galiatsatos et al. 2008

J Can Dent Assoc 2002;68: Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-Empress ceramic restorationsa literature review. El-Mowafy O, Brochu JF. 6 studies YFR = 0.88% – 1.28% LITERATURE Review

J Adhesive Dent. 2001;3: Longevity of Restorations in Posterior Teeth and Reasons for Failures Hickel R, Manhart J. Aust Dent. 1999;44: The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: a review Bergman MA. Main failure pattern of porcelain inlays is bulk fracture Contraindicated in case of bruxism Require minimal dimensions Differential wear between ceramics & luting composite Wear of opposing structures