Аналіз ускладнень, що виникають після відновлення дефектів коронкової частини бічних зубів композитними матеріалами за рентгенологічними ознаками

Nazarii Mykyievych; Valentyn Makeyev

doi:10.33295/1992-576X-2026-1-12

Authors

Nazarii Mykyievych Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0496-1186
Valentyn Makeyev Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4841-8441

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33295/1992-576X-2026-1-12

Keywords:

dental restorations, composite materials, radiography, restorative complications

Abstract

Background. Composite restorations of posterior teeth are widely used in clinical dentistry; however, despite the application of modern materials and adhesive systems, the incidence of complications remains high. This is particularly relevant for proximal surfaces of molars and premolars, where anatomical features complicate the formation of proper marginal adaptation and proximal contact, thus justifying radiographic evaluation as an objective method for assessing restoration quality.
Objective. To analyze radiographically detected complications following the restoration of coronal defects of posterior teeth with composite materials and to determine their frequency depending on tooth localization and morphology.
Materials and Methods. A total of 183 periapical radiographs of maxillary and mandibular molars and premolars restored with composite materials due to moderate and deep carious lesions involving proximal surfaces were analyzed. Marginal adaptation defects, proximal contact loss, secondary caries, and their combinations were assessed, taking into account the localization of defects (MO, OD, MOD).
Results. The most frequent radiographically detected complications were marginal adaptation defects (34.5%) and loss of proximal contact (26.3%). Isolated secondary caries was observed in 4.8% of cases; however, when combined with an overhanging restoration margin or proximal contact loss, its prevalence increased to 34.4%. The highest number of complications was recorded in mandibular molars (38.8%), which may be related to their anatomical characteristics and limited accessibility for visual inspection.
Conclusions. Radiographic analysis enabled the detection of errors and complications not evident during clinical examination, particularly the absence of proximal contact and overhanging restoration margins, which are iatrogenic in nature and may lead to further pathological changes in hard dental tissues. These findings highlight the need to improve and refine restorative techniques aimed at reducing the frequency of such complications and enhancing the long-term clinical effectiveness of composite restorations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Incekara, M. Ş., & Karadas, M. (2025). Clinical comparison of direct and indirect class II composite restorations: a prospective 12-month follow-up study. BMC Oral Health, 25, 1217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06604-z.

Hiroyasu Kurokawa, et al. (2015). Three-year clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations placed with a single-step self-etch adhesive. J Oral Science, 57(2), 101–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.57.101.

Demarco, F. F., Correa, M. B., Cenci, M. S., Moraes, R. R., & Opdam, N. J. (2012). Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. J Dent Mater, 28(1), 87–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003.

Opdam, N. J., Bronkhorst, E. M., Roeters, J. M., Loomans, B. A., Huysmans, M. C. (2014). Longevity and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res, 93(10), 943–949. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217.

B. A. C. Loomans., et al. (2007). The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness. J Dent, 35(2), 104–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.05.004.

Abdelaziz, M. M., Fathy, S., Alaraby, A. A., Shehab, W. I., Temirek, M. M. (2024). Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health, 24, 1162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04746-0.

AlSheikh, R., Almulhim, K. S., Abdulkader, M., Haridy, R., Bugshan, A. S., Aldamanhouri, R., & Elgezawi M. (2022). Toward a clinically reliable Class II resin composite restoration: a cross-sectional study into the current clinical practice among dentists in Saudi Arabia. Int J Dent, 2022, 2691376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2691376.

Abbassy, K. M., Elmahy, W. A., Holiel, A. A. (2023). Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health, 23, 729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03462-5.

Bezvushko, E. V., & Shpotyuk, O. O. (2017). Clinical evaluation of composite restorations based on oral hygiene. Clinical dentistry, (2). [Безвушко Е. В., Шпотюк О. О. (2017). Клінічна оцінка реставрацій із композитних матеріалів з урахуванням гігієни порожнини рота. Клінічна стоматологія, 2, 7963]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11603/2311-9624.2017.2.7963 [in Ukrainian].

Rezwani-Kaminski, T., Kamann, W., & Gaengler, P. (2002). Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with longterm performing composite restorations. J Oral Rehabil, 29(12), 11311138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00975.x.

Jan W. V. van Dijken, Ulla Pallesen. (2014). A randomized controlled three-year evaluation of “bulk-filled” posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater, 30(9), e245–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.028.

Heintze, S. D., Rousson, V., & Hickel, R. (2015). Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations—a meta-analysis. Dent Mater, 31(5), 481–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.015.

Nedeljkovic, I., Teughels, W., De Munck, J., et al. (2020). Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and approach. Clin Oral Investig, 24(2), 683–691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02894-0.

Da Rosa Rodolfo P. A., Rodolfo B., Collares K., et al. (2022). Clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after up to 33 years. Dent Mater, 38(4), 680688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.02.009.

Ferracane, J. L. (2011). Resin composite — state of the art. Dent Mater, 27(1), 29–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020.

Pallesen, U., van Dijken, J. W., Halken, J., Hallonsten, A. L., & Höigaard, R. (2013). Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent, 41(4), 297306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.021.

Ástvaldsdóttir, Á., Dagerhamn, J., van Dijken, J. W. V., NaimiAkbar, A., Sandborgh-Englund, G., Tranæus, S., & Nilsson, M. (2015). Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults—a systematic review. J Dent, 43(8), 934954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001.

Brouwer, F., Askar, H., Paris, S., & Schwendicke, F. (2016). Detecting secondary caries lesions: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Dent Res, 95(2), 143151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515611041.

Opdam, N. J., Roeters, J. M., Loomans, B. A., & Bronkhorst, E. M. (2007). Seven-year clinical evaluation of direct resin composite restorations. Dent. Mater, 23(1), 110–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036.

Schwendicke, F., Tzschoppe, M., & Paris, S. (2015). Radiographic caries detection: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Dent, 43(8), 924933. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.009.

Spagopoulos, D., Michou, S., Gizani, S., Pappa, E., & Rahiotis, C. (2023). Fluorescence and nearinfrared light for detection of secondary caries: a systematic review. Dent J, 11(12), 271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11120271.

Espelid, I., Tveit, A. B., Erickson, R. L., Keck, S. C., & Glasspoole, E. A.(1991). Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater, 7(2), 114–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(91)90056-5.

Balevi, B. (2014). Caries risk and number of restored surfaces have impact on the survival of posterior composite restorations: evidencebased analysis. Evid Based Dent, 15(4), 118–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401065.

Mjör, I. A. (1997). The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand, 55(1), 58–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359709091943.

Chauhan, R. (2015). Good shortterm survival rates for posterior resin composite restorations. Evid Based Dent, 16(4), 114–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401135.