Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Feature
  • Published:

Sub-gingival posterior composites: How confident are you?

BDJ In Practice volume 35, pages 28–29 (2022)Cite this article

Oliver Bailey offers a step-by-step approach for the GDP

When working in practice, I often encountered problems trying to effectively manage sub-gingival margins when placing posterior composites, so I therefore began to look for solutions to the problem. I was also interested to know if other dentists and dental therapists felt the same way.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008].

  2. Lynch C D and Wilson N H. Managing the phase-down of amalgam: Part I. Educational and training issues. Br Dent J 2013; 215: 109-113.

  3. Bailey O, Vernazza C R, Stone S, Ternent L, Roche A-G and Lynch C. Amalgam phase-down part 1: UK-based posterior restorative material and technique use. JDR Clin Trans Res 2022; 7: 41-49.

  4. Bailey O, Vernazza C R, Stone S, Ternent L, Roche A-G and Lynch C. Amalgam phase-down part 2: UK-based knowledge, opinions, and confidence in the alternatives. JDR Clin Trans Res 2022; 7: 50-60.

  5. Kielbassa A M, Glockner G, Wolgin M and Glockner K. Systematic review on highly viscous glass-ionomer cement/resin coating restorations (Part I): Do they merge Minamata Convention and minimum intervention dentistry? Quintessence Int 2016; 47: 813-823.

  6. Heintze S D and Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14: 407-431.

  7. Gallo J, Burgess J, Ripps A et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of a posterior resin composite using a fourth-and fifth-generation bonding agent. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 290.

  8. Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, van Dijken J W, Funegard U, Lindberg A and Nilsson M. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden. J Dent 2009; 37: 673-678.

  9. Forss H and Widström E. From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand 2001; 59: 57-62.

  10. Burke F J, Cheung S W, Mjor I A and Wilson N H. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 1999; 30: 234-242.

  11. Bailey O and O'Connor C. Papilla management in sub-gingival, interproximal, direct composite restoration: a key step to success. Br Dent J 2019; 226: 933-937.

  12. Furuse A Y, da Cunha L F, Benetti A R and Mondelli J. Bond strength of resin-resin interfaces contaminated with saliva and submitted to different surface treatments. J Appl Or Sci 2007; 15: 501-505.

  13. Powers J M, Finger W J and Xie J. Bonding of Composite Resin to Contaminated Human Enamel and Dentin. J Prosthod 1995; 4: 28-32.

  14. Loomans B A, Opdam N J, Roeters F J, Bronkhorst E M and Huysmans M C. Restoration techniques and marginal overhang in Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 2009; 37: 712-717.

  15. Bailey O. Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth. Br Dent J 2021; 231: 547-555

  16. Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Ionescu A, Garcia-Godoy F and Brambilla E. Surface properties of resin-based composite materials and biofilm formation: A review of the current literature. Am J Dent 2015; 28: 311-320.

  17. Pinna R, Usai P, Filigheddu E, Garcia-Godoy F and Milia E. The role of adhesive materials and oral biofilm in the failure of adhesive resin restorations. Am J Dent 2017; 30: 285-292.

  18. Rasines Alcaraz M G, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin P R, Davis D and Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2014; Mar 31: CD005620.

  19. Herrero F, Scott J B, Maropis P S and Yukna R A. Clinical comparison of desired versus actual amount of surgical crown lengthening. J Periodontol 1995; 66: 568-571.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Oliver Bailey

Authors
  1. Oliver Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Bailey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bailey, O. Sub-gingival posterior composites: How confident are you?. BDJ In Pract 35, 28–29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-022-1070-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-022-1070-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links