Replacement of Two Failed Indirect Restorations with Direct Bonded Restorations Using Minimally Invasive Strategy

Authors

Citra Kusumasari, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, IndonesiaFollow
Takashi Hatayama, Department of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, JapanFollow
Yasushi Shimada, Department of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, JapanFollow

Abstract

Deciding on what treatment (repair or replacement) to provide for a failed indirect restoration can be challenging. Notably, the strength of the residual tooth structure could be improved after replacing the failed indirect restoration using a minimally invasive strategy. Objective: To describe the use of a minimally invasive strategy for the successful clinical replacement of two failed indirect metal restorations with direct composite restorations and the attainment of bonded restoration. Case Report: Case 1. A 52-year-old male patient came to the dental hospital complaining of discomfort when drinking cold beverages and food impaction on the proximal area of the upper left first molar. Case 2. A 45-year-old female patient complained about her debonded metal onlay and secondary caries in the upper right second molar. Both of these indirect restoration failures were treated with direct resin composite restoration. Both patients were highly satisfied with the results. Conclusion: This report presents the benefits of adopting a minimally invasive strategy approach for replacing failed indirect restorations (inlays and onlays) with direct-bonded composite restorations. Minimally invasive direct restorations are designed to maximize the preservation of tooth structure, thereby ensuring a long-term bonded restoration and leaving future options open when a failure occurs.

References

1. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry - A review: FDI Commission Project 1-97. Int Dent J. 2000;50(1):1– 12.
2. Banerjee A. Minimal intervention dentistry: Part 7. Minimally invasive operative caries management: Rationale and techniques. Br Dent J. 2013;214(3):107–11.
3. Wilson NHF, Lynch CD, Brunton PA, Hickel R, Meyer-Lueckel H, Gurgan S, et al. Criteria for the replacement of restorations: Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section. Oper Dent. 2016;41:S48–S57.
4. Ericson D, Kidd E, McComb D, Mjör I, Noack MJ. Minimally Invasive Dentistry--concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2003;1(1):59–72.
5. Mackenzie L, Banerjee A. Minimally invasive direct restorations: A practical guide. Br Dent J. 2017;223(3):163–71.
6. Vagropoulou GI, Klifopoulou GL, Vlahou SG, Hirayama H, Michalakis K. Complications and survival rates of inlays and onlays vs complete coverage restorations: A systematic review and analysis of studies. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45(11):903–20.
7. Lubisich EB, Hilton TJ, Ferracane J. Cracked teeth: A review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010;22(3):158–67.
8. Alleman DS, Magne P. A systematic approach to deep caries removal end points: the peripheral seal concept in adhesive dentistry. Quintessence Int. 2012;43(3):197–208.
9. Fusayama T, Terachima S. Differentiation of two layers of carious dentin by staining. J Dent Res 1972;51(3):866.
10. Momoi Y, Hayashi M, Fujitani M, Fukushima M, Imazato S, Kubo S, et al. Clinical guidelines for treating caries in adults following a minimal intervention policy - Evidence and consensus based report. J Dent. 2012;40(2):95–105.
11. van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From buonocore’s pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratlves. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dentai adheslve technology. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(1):7–34.
12. Yaguchi T. Layering mechanism of MDP-Ca salt produced in demineralization of enamel and dentin apatite. Dent Mater. 2017;33(1):23–32.
13. Follak AC, Miotti LL, Lenzi TL, Rocha R de O, Soares FZM. Self-etch Approach of universal adhesives as an alternative to minimize bond degradation on sound dentin vs caries-affected dentin over time. J Adhes Dent. 2021;23(3):243–52.
14. Li N, Nikaido T, Alireza S, Takagaki T, Chen JH, Tagami J. Phosphoric acid-etching promotes bond strength and formation of acid-base resistant zone on enamel. Oper Dent. 2013;38(1):82–90.
15. Prasansuttiporn T, Tagami J, Nakajima M, Foxton RM. Scrubbing effect of self-etching adhesives on bond strength to NaOCl-treated dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(2):121–27.
16. Erhardt MC, Osorio R, Pisani-Proenca J, Aguilera FS, Osorio E, Breschi L, et al. Effect of double layering and prolonged application time on MTBS of water/ethanol-based self-etch adhesives to dentin. Oper Dent. 2009;34(5):571–77.
17. Muduroglu R, Ionescu AC, Del Fabbro M, Scolavino S, Brambilla E. Distribution of adhesive layer in class II composite resin restorations before/ after interproximal matrix application. J Dent. 2020;103(July):103494.
18. Yadav KD. Techniques in direct composite restoration. Mod Approaches Dent Oral Heal Care. 2018;3(5):307–09.

Recommended Citation

Kusumasari, C., Hatayama, T., & Shimada, Y. Replacement of Two Failed Indirect Restorations with Direct Bonded Restorations Using Minimally Invasive Strategy. J Dent Indones. 2021;28(3): 198-204