Evaluation of the performance and problems of general dentists during and after the placement of composite in the posterior teeth in Kerman, Iran, 2016

Razieh Hoseinifar, Ali Eskandarizadeh, Fatemeh Zolfaghari


BACKGROUND AND AIM: Nowadays, resin composites are the preferred material for direct posterior restorations. The present study was conducted to assess the performance and problems of general dental practitioners during and after posterior direct composite restorations in Kerman, Iran.

METHODS: 160 general dentists (63% men and 37% women) participated in this analytic-descriptive study. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 13 close-ended questions about the performance and problems of dentists associated with composite restorations in Kerman, in 2016. Data were analyzed by chi square and t-test using SPSS software.

RESULTS: The most frequent complaint of patients after composite restorations was food impaction (45.0%), and the most clinicians' problems during composite restorations were achieving tight proximal contact (59.3%) and proper isolation (59.3%). Most of the dentists used traditional metal matrix systems (70.0%), wet polishing technique (81.2%), light-emitting diode (LED) light curing unit (62.5%), packable composites (51.2%) with incremental technique (83.1%), and two-step total etch bonding (70.0%). The main criteria for selecting composite as restorative material was patient request (55.0%), and most of the dentists preferred to restore the small or moderate class I cavities (67.5%), and after it, class V cavities (57.5%) with composite. Moreover, secondary caries (58.1%) was the most common reason for replacement of composite restorations; and in all questions, there were statistically significant differences between the most prevalent answer and the other answers (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The most frequent problems of dentists (achieving proper contact) and the most frequent complaints of patients (food impaction) are related to the use of traditional metal matrix systems.


Composite Resins; Isolation; Patients; Dentist

Full Text:



Lynch CD, Guillem SE, Nagrani B, Gilmour AS, Ericson D. Attitudes of some European dental undergraduate students to the placement of direct restorative materials in posterior teeth. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37(12): 916-26.

Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005; 21(1): 9-20.

Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28(1): 87-101.

Nomann NA, Polan MAA, Jan CM, Rashid F, Taleb A. Amalgam and composite restoration in posterior teeth. Bangladesh Journal of Dental Research & Education 2013; 3(1): 30-5.

Akbar I. Knowledge and attitudes of general dental practitioners towards posterior composite restorations in northern Saudi Arabia. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(2): ZC61-ZC64.

Judi R, Abolghasemzade F. Evaluation of the general dentist’s problems during and after posterior composite filling in Babol. Caspian Journal of Dental Research 2015; 4(1): 50-3.

Briso AL, Mestrener SR, Delicio G, Sundfeld RH, Bedran-Russo AK, de Alexandre RS, et al. Clinical assessment of postoperative sensitivity in posterior composite restorations. Oper Dent 2007; 32(5): 421-6.

Burke FJ, Shortall AC. Successful restoration of load-bearing cavities in posterior teeth with direct-replacement resin-based composite. Dent Update 2001; 28(8): 388-94, 396, 398.

Dorfer CE, Schriever A, Heidemann D, Staehle HJ, Pioch T. Influence of rubber-dam on the reconstruction of proximal contacts with adhesive tooth-colored restorations. J Adhes Dent 2001; 3(2): 169-75.

Rau PJ, Pioch T, Staehle HJ, Dorfer CE. Influence of the rubber dam on proximal contact strengths. Oper Dent 2006; 31(2): 171-5.

Wirsching E, Loomans BA, Klaiber B, Dorfer CE. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 2011; 39(5): 386-90.

Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Van't Hof MA, Burgersdijk RC. Problems related to posterior composite resin restorations among dental practitioners. J Dent Res 2002; 81: A250.

Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Asscherickx K, Simon S, Abe Y, Lambrechts P, et al. Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? Dent Mater 2001; 17(6): 533-41.

Burgess JO, Walker R, Davidson JM. Posterior resin-based composite: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24(5): 465-79.

Stangel I, Barolet RY. Clinical evaluation of two posterior composite resins: Two-year results. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17(3): 257-68.

Amin M, Naz F, Sheikh A, Ahmed A. Post-operative sensitivity in teeth restored with posterior dental composites using self-etch and total-etch adhesives. J Pak Dent Assoc 2015; 24(1): 22-8.

Ivanovic V, Savic-Stankovic T, Karadzic B, Ilic J, Santini A, Beljic-lvanovic K. Postoperative sensitivity associated with low shrinkage versus conventional composites. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2013; 141(7-8): 447-53.

Gilmour AS, Evans P, Addy LD. Attitudes of general dental practitioners in the UK to the use of composite materials in posterior teeth. Br Dent J 2007; 202(12): E32.

Gilmour AS, Latif M, Addy LD, Lynch CD. Placement of posterior composite restorations in United Kingdom dental practices: Techniques, problems, and attitudes. Int Dent J 2009; 59(3): 148-54.

Soares AC, Cavalheiro A. A review of amalgam and composite longevity of posterior restorations. Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentaria e Cirurgia Maxilofacial 2010; 51(3): 155-64.

Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: Findings from the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138(6): 763-72.

Savadi Oskoee S, Poor Abbas R, Hafezehquran A. Evaluation of light curing units effectiveness used in clinics and private dental offices of Tabriz, 2001. J Dent Sch Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2004; 22(1): 82-95. [In Persian].

Mirzaei M, Moradimajd N. Evaluation of curing units used in private dental offices in Tehran in 2005. J Dent Med 2007; 20(2): 138-43.

Asghar S, Ali A, Rashid S, Hussain T. Replacement of resin-based composite restorations in permanent teeth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2010; 20(10): 639-43.

Ziskind D, Mass E, Watson TF. Effect of different restorative materials on caries: A retrospective in vivo study. Quintessence Int 2007; 38(5): 429-34.

Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS, Holder RL. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 2): Variation by patients' characteristics. J Dent 2005; 33(10): 817-26.

Lucarotti PS, Holder RL, Burke FJ. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): Variation by type of restoration and re-intervention. J Dent 2005; 33(10): 805-15.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22122/johoe.v7i3.374


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Oral Health and Oral Epidemiology

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.