The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( May, 2006 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Composite Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth

Esra Can Say, Baybora Kayahan, Emre Ozel, Kagan Gokce, Mubin Soyman, Gunduz Bayirli

Citation Information : Say EC, Kayahan B, Ozel E, Gokce K, Soyman M, Bayirli G. Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Composite Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7 (2):17-25.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-2-17

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-09-2007

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; The Author(s).



The purpose of this study was to evaluate the two year clinical performance of posterior composite restorations in endodontically treated premolars and molars using a hybrid composite (Filtek Z-250, 3M ESPE) and a total etch bonding system (Single Bond, 3M ESPE).

Method and Materials

Thirty-nine class II restorations in endodontically treated premolars (n=11) and molars (n=28) of 27 patients (14 female, 13 male, mean age 36.51) in 16 maxillar and 23 mandibular teeth were placed by one operator. Restorations were evaluated by two experienced investigators at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria that included retention, color match, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and surface texture. All restorations were able to be evaluated at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.


Paired samples t-test showed only marginal discoloration showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) at the end of 24 months, and no other significant differences were observed for the other variables examined over the duration of the study. None of the restored teeth showed periapical pathology at the end of 24 months.


At two years, limited deterioration in marginal discoloration was detected. The clinical performance of posterior composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth using Filtek Z250 was found clinically acceptable after two years.


Can Say E, Kayahan B, Ozel E, Gokce K, Soyman M, Bayirli G. Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Composite Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 May;(7)2:017-025.

PDF Share
  1. Bonded partial restorations for endodontically treated teeth. In:Roulet JF, Wilson NHF, Fuzzi M, eds. Advances in Operative Dentistry; Contemporary Clinical Practice. Illinois: Quintessence Pub; 2001:191-209.
  2. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedure. J Endod 1989;15:512-516.
  3. Restoration of the endodontically treated teeth. In:Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the Pulp. St Louis: Mosby Inc; 2002:765-797.
  4. Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1995;21:57-61.
  5. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 1999;25:6-8.
  6. Fiber posts: Characteristics and clinical applications. Milano: Masson SPA; 2002:7-51.
  7. Predictably restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Can Dent Assoc 1998;64:782-787.
  8. Restoration of the root filled teeth. In:Orstavik TR, Ford P, eds. Essential Endodontology, Prevention and Treatment of Apical Periodontitis. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998:311-366.
  9. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: A retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:164-170.
  10. Prevalance of vertical root fractures in extracted endodontically treated teeth. Int Endod J 1999;32:283-286.
  11. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986;2:35-38.
  12. Stiffness of endodontically-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989;68:1540-1544.
  13. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997;10:237-241.
  14. Assessment of the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated molars restored with amalgam. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:462-465.
  15. The amalgam-free dental school. J Dent 2004;32:371-377.
  16. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:49-55.
  17. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with enamel-bonded resin. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:218-225.
  18. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125:687-701.
  19. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004;29:481-508.
  20. Methods of clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:109-123.
  21. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Dental Health Center, San Francisco: US Government: Printing Office; 1971, Publication No: 7902244.
  22. Zu methodik und Erfahrungen des klinisch kontrollierten Experiments. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl 1990;78:127-130.
  23. Class II restorations with a polyacidmodified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2000;25:259-264.
  24. Direct and indirect evaluation of posterior composite restorations at three years. Dent Mater 1992;8:60-64.
  25. Current status of dental amalgam. J Wis Dent Assoc 1980; 56: 697-703.
  26. Composite restoration wear analysis: Conventional methods vs.three-dimensional laser digitizer. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1472-1477.
  27. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin based composites: A comparison. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1610-1615.
  28. A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: One-year results. Oper Dent 2002;27:423-429.
  29. Physical properties of different composites. Dent Mater J 2004;23:278-283.
  30. Effect of contact area size on enamel and composite wear. J Dent Res 1992;71:1413-1416.
  31. The wear effects of selected composites on restorative materials and enamel. Dent Mater 1987;3:236-240.
  32. A 5 and 8 year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int 1991;22:143-151.
  33. Performance of occlusion in butt-joint and bevel edged preparations: 5 year results. Dent Mater 1991;7:92-98.
  34. Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10- year report. J Dent 1999;27:13-19.
  35. Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int 1993;24:641-658.
  36. Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite resin restorations: a new restorative technique. Quintessence Int 1986;17:777-784.
  37. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoratives J Dent Res 1987;66:1636-1639.
  38. A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class I and Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25:229-232.
  39. The age of restorations in situ. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:234-242.
  40. Glass-ionomer cement restorations and secondary caries: a preliminary report. Quintessence Int 1996;27:171-174.
  41. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55:58-63.
  42. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7:71-79.
  43. Longevity of cusp-covered amalgams: survivals after 15 years. Oper Dent 1991;16:17-20.
  44. Adhesion. The Silent Revolution in Dentistry. Leipzig, Quint Pub, 2000.
  45. Comparison of flexural properties of composite restoratives using the ISO and miniflexural tests. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:171-177.
  46. Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or fiber posts and resin composite: Five-year results. Oper Dent 2005;30:9-15.
  47. Direct composite restorations: extended use in anterior and posterior situations. Clin Oral Invest 2004; 8: 43-44.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.