Clinical Behavior of Cl IV Direct Composite Restorations

Objective: The aim of this study, based on individual participant data from several studies, was to investigate the influence of materials related to Failure of class IV direct resin composite restorations and reason of failure. We conducted a search resulting in 5 longitudinal studies of class IV direct resin composite restorations with follow-up between two to twenty years. Main reasons for failure were luck of retention and fracture. Materials and Methods: This is a review study. The research sources utilized were PubMed, Google scholar, MEDLINE and Complutense university Library. The keywords which were selected based on Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and PICOS criteria were Class IV Direct Composite Restoration , Failure of Class IV Direct Composite Restoration, longevity of Class IV Direct Composite Restoration and survival rate of Class IV Direct Composite Restoration. For the period from 2010 to 2019. The number of subjects who restored with Nano filled resin composite (FiltekSupream) was 12, 13 subjects restored with Nano hybrid (Ceram X Duo), 13 subjects restored with polyacid modified resin composite (compomer), 7 subjects restored with resin-modified glass ionomer cement, 8 subjects restored with universal composites (Herculite XR), 16 subjects restored with universal composites (Charisma), 7 subjects restored with Highly Filled Hybrid Composite (TPH), 11 subjects restored with non specific resin composite and 2 subjects restored with microhybrid composite, Amaris (Voco). Results: Nanofilled resin composite (FiltekSupream) and Nano hybrid (Ceram X Duo) both have the same longevity between two to five years in direct class IV composite, loss of restorations for lack of retention and fracture of restorations is the main reason of failure for both.