Udod O. A., Roman O. B.


About the author:

Udod O. A., Roman O. B.



Type of article:

Scentific article


Nowadays, dental specialists widely use various restorative materials in tooth restoration. The research data on the prevalence of complications after dental restorations and their structure differ significantly, which complicates comparative analysis and its interpretation, as well as clear understanding of the causes of these complications. The study was aimed at comparative clinical assessment of the direct restorations of carious teeth performed at different periods with light- and chemical curing composites, and analysis of the structure of their disorders. The study included examination of 104 patients aged from 18 to 68 years, namely, 46 men (44.2% of the total number of examined persons) and 58 women (55.8%). The state of direct dental restorations performed with lightand chemical curing composites was evaluated according to G. Ruge (1981) clinical criteria: color matching, marginal fit of the material to the hard tissues of the restored teeth, marginal staining on the edge of restoration, secondary caries, anatomical shape, roughness of restoration surface. While examining the patients, 918 restorations were observed, including 584 restorations (63.7% of the total) performed with light curing composites, 262 (28.5%) restorations − with chemical curing composites, and only 72 (7.8%) fillings − with cement materials. The excellent condition had 358 restorations (39.0% of the total number), the other 560 cases (61.0%) presented with various disorders. The defects were absent in 286 light curing restorations (49.0% of their total number), with defects − 298 (51.0%) restorations, chemical curing restorations − 198 (75.6% of the number of restorations with such materials) and 64 restorations (24.4%) with cement materials, only 8 were detected without disorders (12.5% of the number of restorations with cements), with defects − 63 cases (87.5%). The greatest number of light curing restorations with disorders was observed in Black class II localization − 155 cases (52.0% of the number of light curing restorations with disorders), in Black class I localization restorations with disorders − 67 (22.5%), in class III localization − 28 (9.4%), in class IV localization − 34 (11.4%), in the cervical region −14 restorations (4.7%) with disorders. Chemical curing restorations in Black class I and II localization with disorders were 68 (34.3% of the total number of chemical curing restorations with disorders) and 71 (36.0%), respectively. In case of their localization on the contact surfaces of the anterior teeth, 35 (17.7%) restorations in Black class III, 14 (7.1%) in class IV, and 10 restorations (5.1%) − in the cervical region were observed. Among the light curing restorations, disorders of the marginal fit were more often revealed, namely, in 103 restorations (19.4% of the total number of disorders in the light curing restorations), marginal staining − 95 (17.9%), color mismatch − 94 cases (17.7 %). In chemical curing restorations, the color mismatch was the most frequently observed and amounted to 149 restorations (19.3% of the number of disorders in restorations with these materials), disorder of the marginal fit − 146 (18.9%), marginal staining − 144 cases (18.6 %). The direct dental restoration most often involves light curing materials, less often − chemical curing composites and glass ionomer cements. Disorders in light curing restorations were revealed in 51.0% of cases, in chemical curing restorations − 75.6%, in restorations with cements − 88.9%. Among composite restorations, the disorders in restorations on the contact surfaces of the posterior teeth were the most often observed, namely, in 52.0% of light curing restorations and in 36.0% of chemical curing restorations. The marginal fit (19.4%) and marginal staining (17.9%) were the most common disorders in light curing restorations; in chemical curing restorations − color mismatch (19.3%) and marginal fit disorders (18.9%) were often observed.


dental restoration, clinical assessment, injury, light curing composites, chemical curing composites.


  1. Borisenko AV. Kompozitsionnyye plombirovochnyye i oblitsovochnyye materialy. K.: VSI «Meditsina»; 2015. 320 s. [in Russian].
  2. Nikolaev AI. Prakticheskaya terapevticheskaya stomatologiya: ucheb. posobie. MEDpress-inform; 2017. 928 s. [in Russian].
  3. David C Sarrett. Restorative Materials. ADA Professional Product Review. Spring. 2010;5(2).
  4. Shushkova YuV, Shudlo UM. Medychna reforma: osoblyvosti vprovadzhennia ta vplyv na systemu okhorony zdorovia. Ekonomika. Finansy. Pravo. 2018;5(4):22-5. [in Ukrainian].
  5. Bidenko NV. Stekloionomernyie tsementyi v stomatologii. KnigaPlyus, 1999. 69 s. [in Russian].
  6. Fylypchyk IS, Danylevych OV, Zhukova OO. Pomylky i uskladnennya pry vykorystanni fotopolimernykh plombuval’nykh materialiv i metody yikh usunennya. Ukr. stomatolohiyi. 2008;2:43. [in Ukrainian].
  7. Udod OA, Bekuzarova KhI. Klinichna otsinka fotokompozytsiinykh vidnovlen zubiv, vykonanykh za udoskonalenymy pidkhodamy. Visnyk problem biolohii i medytsyny. 2018;1.2(143):369-73. [in Ukrainian].
  8. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. International Dental Journal. 1980;30:347-58.

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 4 Part 2 (154), 2019 year, 386-389 pages, index UDK 616.314-74-071:615.46