Frequency of recurrent caries in bitewing radiographies in patients who ‎attended Kerman dental radiology centers, Iran

Document Type: Original Article(s)


1 Associate Professor, Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center AND Kerman Social Determinants on Oral Health Research ‎Center AND Department of Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center AND Kerman Social Determinants on Oral Health Research ‎Center AND Department of Pathology, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

4 Dentist, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran


BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recurrent caries is defined as caries in the marginal edges of filled teeth and is the most common reason for restoration replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluation of recurrent caries in amalgam, resin-based restorations and crowns in bitewing radiographies in patients who attended Kerman dental radiology centers, Iran.METHODS: This cross-sectional study conducted on 3000 bitewing radiographies. Data were gathered by a checklist consist of sex, age, age of restorations (patients reported), and evaluation of radiographies consist of type of restorations, teeth number, existence recurrent caries. Radiographies examination was done by a last year dental student who was trained. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using chi-square and t-tests. P < 0.050 was considered significant.RESULTS: The rate of the recurrent caries was 8.4%. The rate of recurrent caries in amalgam and resin-based composite was 3.1 and 42.5%, respectively. Resin-based composite material had higher recurrent caries with significant difference (P = 0.001). There was also significant differences between age of restorations and recurrent caries (P = 0.030). Multi-surfaces restorations had more recurrent caries (P = 0.020). There was no significant correlation between sex, number of teeth, mandible or maxilla, and recurrent caries.CONCLUSION:According to the results of this study, resin-based composite, older and complex restorations had a higher rate of recurrent caries. 


  1. Heymann HO, Swift EJ, Ritter AV. Sturdevant's art & science of operative dentistry. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. p. 41-88.
  2. Mjor IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: A literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 2000; 31(3): 165-79.
  3. White SD, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: Principle and interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby; 2000.
  4. Beazoglou T, Eklund S, Heffley D, Meiers J, Brown LJ, Bailit H. Economic impact of regulating the use of amalgam restorations. Public Health Rep 2007; 122(5): 657-63.
  5. Gordan VV, Riley JL 3rd, Geraldeli S, Rindal DB, Qvist V, Fellows JL, et al. Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in the dental practice-based research network. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143(6): 593-601.
  6. Kidd EA, Joyston-Bechal S, Beighton D. Diagnosis of secondary caries: a laboratory study. Br Dent J 1994; 176(4): 135-8, 139.
  7. Mjor IA. The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries. Quintessence Int 1998; 29(5): 313-7.
  8. Deligeorgi V, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care 2001; 8(1): 5-11.
  9. Chestnut IG, Jones PR, Jacobson AP, Schafer F, Stephen KW. Prevalence of clinically apparent recurrent caries in Scottish adolescents, and the influence of oral hygiene practices. Caries Res 1995; 29(4): 266-71.
  10. Chrysanthakopoulos NA. Placement, replacement and longevity of composite resin-based restorations in permanent teeth in Greece. Int Dent J 2012; 62(3): 161-6.
  11. Kandemir S. The radiographic investigation of the visibility of secondary caries adjacent to the gingiva in Class II amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int 1997; 28(6): 387-92.
  12. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Yuksel S, Ozen T. Proximal caries detection accuracy using intraoral bitewing radiography, extraoral bitewing radiography and panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41(6): 450-9.
  13. Fitzgerald RJ, Adams BO, Davis ME. A microbiological study of recurrent dentinal caries. Caries Res 1994; 28(6): 409-15.
  14. Nair MK, Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, May K, Ye F. The effects of restorative material and location on the detection of simulated recurrent caries. A comparison of dental film, direct digital radiography and tuned aperture computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27(2): 80-4.
  15. Anbiaee N, Mohassel AR, Imanimoghaddam M, Moazzami SM. A comparison of the accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11(6): E025-E032.
  16. Otto PF, Rule JT. Relationship between proximal cavity design and recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 116(7): 867-70.
  17. Davari AA, Ez Aldini F, Daneshkazemi AR, Asad Elah Tabar M. A clinical evaluation on cl ii amalgam restorations failure at dental school in Yazd. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci 2009; 12(4): 56-62. [In Persian].
  18. Jaberi Ansari Z, Valizadeh Haghi H. Secondary Caries in the Posterior Teeth of Patients Presenting to the Department of Operative Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti Dental School. J Dent Sch 2014; 32(2): 125-31. [In Persian].
  19. Pouralibaba F, Joulaei M, Kashefimehr A, Pakdel F, Jamali Z, Esmaeili A. Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam restorations in patients referring to a dental school in Iran. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2010; 4(2): 56-9.
  20. Chrysanthakopoulos NA. Reasons for placement and replacement of resin-based composite restorations in Greece. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2011; 5(3): 87-93.
  21. Kimyai S, Mehdipour M, Savadi OS, Alizadeh OP, Abbaszadeh A. Reasons for retreatment of amalgam and composite restorations among the patients referring to Tabriz Faculty of Dentistry. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2007; 1(1): 27-31.
  22. Bohaty BS, Ye Q, Misra A, Sene F, Spencer P. Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2013; 5: 33-42.
  23. Simecek JW, Diefenderfer KE, Cohen ME. An evaluation of replacement rates for posterior resin-based composite and amalgam restorations in U.S. Navy and marine corps recruits. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140(2): 200-9.
  24. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23(1): 2-8.
  25. Laccabue M, Ahlf RL, Simecek JW. Frequency of restoration replacement in posterior teeth for U.S. Navy and Marine Corps personnel. Oper Dent 2014; 39(1): 43-9.
  26. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138(6): 775-83.
  27. Behr M, Zeman F, Baitinger T, Galler J, Koller M, Handel G, et al. The clinical performance of porcelain-fused-to-metal precious alloy single crowns: chipping, recurrent caries, periodontitis, and loss of retention. Int J Prosthodont 2014; 27(2): 153-60.