Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, After the caries lesion reaches a certain extent of tooth structure loss, a restoration is often needed to repair the defect. Operative interventions in cariology aim to aid biofilm removal and lesion arrest by cavity sealing, avoid pulpal damage, and restore form, function, and esthetics. There are no clear evidence-based parameters to determine the most appropriate treatment option for each clinical situation. Despite of this, direct composite resins have been the preferable restorative treatment. Scientific literature shows that composites and adhesive strategies play a minor role in treatment success. Patient-related risk factors (mainly those associated with lifestyle and health choices), in addition to the dentist's decision-making process, play a significant role in longevity of the restorations, which tend to fail for the same reasons that lead to the need for restoration (dental caries, tooth/restoration fracture, and esthetics). Therefore, monitoring old restorations in clinical service, even if those present clear signs of degradation, is possible and reasonable within the concept of minimal intervention in dentistry. Unnecessary reinterventions are harmful and costly to health systems, and the clinician's efforts must be directed to eliminating or reducing the etiological factors that can cause the restoration to fail. Thus, patient risk factors assessment is a crucial point in monitoring restorations. Clinician should - whenever possible - postpone operative reinterventions, monitoring the etiological factors that may compromise the restoration's longevity. Also, when operative reintervention is necessary, refurbishment, polishing, and repair should be prioritized over replacement.

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 225106.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Radboud University, 12 april 2019, Promotores : Huysmans, M.C.D.N.J.M., Demarco, F.F. Co-promotores : Opdam, N.J.M., Correa, M.B., Contains fulltext : 201882.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

1 juli 2018, Contains fulltext : 193205.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVES: This retrospective longitudinal study aimed to assess the longevity of single unit crowns placed by several dentists and to investigate risk factors associated with crown failures. METHODS: From patient files, longevity of 3404 full crown restorations placed in 1557 patients by 8 Dutch dentists between 1996 and 2011 were analyzed. Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated and variables associated with failure (success and survival of crowns) were assessed by multivariate Cox-regressions analysis with shared frailty for patients. RESULTS: Most of crowns were PFM (63.8%) placed in molars (58.1%) and non endodontically treated teeth (65.4%). The observation time of restorations varied from 3 weeks to 11 years with a mean of 7 years, resulting in a mean AFR at 11 years of 2.1% and 0.7% for success and survival of crowns, respectively. Among dentists a relevant variation for type of interventions was observed with AFR varying between 1.2% and 3.5%. The most significant risk factor for failure of crowns was the presence of an endodontic treatment, resulting in Hazard ratios of 1.31 for success [95%CI 1.07-1.61] and 1.89 [95%CI 1.35-2.65] for survival of crowns. Tooth type, tooth position (jaw) and gender showed also a significant influence on success of crowns. For survival, increase in patients' age results in a higher risk for failure. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, crowns placed by a selected group of dentist showed a good to acceptable success and survival rates, mainly dependent from the practice. The presence of an endodontically treated tooth was a significant risk factor leading to more failures.

Contains fulltext : 190151.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 177157.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), This practice-based study investigated the performance of a large set of anterior composite restorations placed by a group of 24 general practices. Based on data from electronic patient files, the longevity of 72,196 composite restorations was analyzed, as placed in 29,855 patients by 47 general dental practitioners between 1996 and 2011. Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated, and variables associated with failure were assessed by multivariate Cox regression analysis with shared frailty for 2 age groups (5 to 24 y and >/=25 y). The observation time of restorations varied from 2 wk to 13 y, with a mean of 4.8 y, resulting in a mean AFR of 4.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.5% to 4.6%) at 5 y. Among dentists, a relevant variation in clinical performance of restorations was observed, with an AFR between 2% and 11%. The risk for restoration failure increased in individuals up to 12 y old, having a 17% higher risk for failure when compared with the age group of 18 to 25 y (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.34), and for the age group >65 y, having a 81% higher risk for failure when compared with 25 to 35 y (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.66 to 1.98). In both multivariate models, there was a difference in longevity of restorations for different teeth in the arch, with fillings in central incisors being the most prone to failure and replacement. It was concluded that anterior composite restorations placed by general dental practitioners showed an adequate clinical performance, with a relevant difference in outcome among operators.

Contains fulltext : 171410.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), A literature review was conducted to investigate the influence of patient-related factors on restoration survival in posterior permanent teeth as well as to report the methods used to collect these factors. The selection of articles on longitudinal clinical studies investigating the survival of posterior restorations (except full crowns and temporary fillings) and including patient-related factors was performed by applying predefined criteria. The review was organized into two parts, the first describing how patient factors were assessed in the studies (n=45) and the second presenting the statistical significance (n=27) and size of the effect (n=11) of these factors on restoration survival. Patient-related factors mentioned in the studies included age; gender; caries risk; caries activity/severity; decayed, missing, filled teeth; number of restorations; oral hygiene; and bruxism, among others. Sixteen studies included the patient age or age range in the analysis, which was found to be significant in 47% of the studies. Regarding gender, four of 17 reports found a significant effect on survival, showing more failures for men in three studies. The caries risk profile or related variables were included in the analysis of 15 studies, and a significant effect on survival was reported for high-caries-risk individuals (or related variables) in 67% of these studies. Bruxism was also found to influence restoration survival in three of six studies where this variable was investigated. Some issues were found regarding the reporting of methods used to classify patients according to risk and were thoroughly discussed. In view of the information gathered in this review, the assessment of patient factors along with other variables should become part of clinical studies investigating restoration survival, since several of these factors were shown to influence the failure of restorations, regardless of the material type.

Contains fulltext : 172399.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the longevity of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations placed in a web-based practice-based research network and to investigate risk factors associated with restoration failures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected by a practice-based research network called Ceramic Success Analysis (CSA). 5791 inlay/onlay ceramic restorations were placed in 5523 patients by 167 dentists between 1994 and 2014 in their dental practices. For each restoration specific information related to the tooth, procedures and materials used were recorded. Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated and variables associated with failure were assessed by a multivariate Cox-regression analysis with shared frailty. RESULTS: The mean observation time was 3 years (maximum 15 years) of clinical service, and AFRs at 3 and 10 years follow up were calculated as 1.0% and 1.6%. Restorations with cervical outline in dentin showed a 78% higher risk for failure compared to restorations with margins in enamel. The presence of a liner or base of glass-ionomer cement resulted in a risk for failure twice as large as that of restorations without liner or base material. Restorations performed with simplified adhesive systems (2-step etch-and-rinse and 1-step self-etch) presented a risk of failure 142% higher than restorations performed with adhesives with bonding resin as a separate step (3-step etch-and-rinse and 2-step self-etch). 220 failures were recorded and the most predominant reason for failure was fracture of the restoration or tooth (44.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic inlay/onlay restorations made from several glass ceramic materials and applied by a large number of dentists showed a good survival. Deep cervical cavity outline, presence of a glass ionomer lining cement, and use of simplified adhesive systems were risk factors for survival.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: In this study the literature was systematically reviewed to investigate the clinical longevity of anterior composite restorations. DATA: Clinical studies investigating the survival of anterior light-cured composite restorations with at least three years of follow-up were screened and main reasons associated with restoration failure were registered. SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched without restriction on date or language. Reference lists of eligible studies were hand-searched. The grey literature search was not made systematically. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers screened titles and/or abstracts of 2273 unique studies. In total, 41 studies were selected for full-text reading, from which 17 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The included studies evaluated the clinical performance of Class III and/or IV restorations (10 studies), which were placed due to caries, fracture, or replaced old restorations; veneers and full-coverage restorations placed for aesthetic reasons (five studies); and restorations in worn teeth (two studies). Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated for each study. CONCLUSIONS: In total, 1821 restorations were evaluated and the total failure rate was 24.1%. AFRs varied from 0 to 4.1% and survival rates varied from 53.4% to 100%. Class III restorations generally had lower AFRs than the other restorations. Few studies addressed factors associated with failure, which included adhesive technique, composite resin, retreatment risk, and time required to build-up the restoration. Fracture of tooth/restoration was the most common reason for failure, whereas failures related to aesthetic qualities (color, anatomical form, surface stain) were more frequent when restorations were placed for aesthetic reasons.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: This retrospective, longitudinal clinical study investigated the performance of direct veneers using different composites (microfilledxuniversal) in vital or non-vital anterior teeth. METHODS: Records from 86 patients were retrieved from a Dental School clinic, comprising 196 direct veneers to be evaluated. The FDI criteria were used to assess the clinical evaluation. The survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier method and Log-Rank test. The multivariate Cox regression with shared frailty was used to investigate the factors associated with failure. Results : A total of 196 veneers were evaluated, with 39 failures. The mean time of service for the veneers was 3.5 years, with a general survival rate of 80.1%. In the qualitative evaluation of the restorations, microfilled composite showed slighty better esthetics. The annual failure rates (AFR) were 4.9% for veneers in vital teeth and 9.8% for non-vital teeth with statistical significance (p=0.009). For microfilled and universal veneers the respective AFRs were 6.0% and 6.2% (p>0.05). Veneers made in non-vital teeth had a higher risk of failure over time compared to those made in vital teeth (HR 2.78; 95% CI 1.02-7.56), but the type of material was not a significant factor (p=0.991). The main reason for failure was fracture of the veneer. CONCLUSION: Direct composite veneers showed a satisfactory clinical performance. Veneers performed in vital teeth showed a better performance than those placed in non-vital teeth. No difference in the survival rate for different composites was found, although microfilled composites showed a slightly better esthetic appearance. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Direct composite veneers show good results in esthetic dentistry nowadays. Composite veneers in vital teeth have a lower risk of failure than those in non-vital teeth.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: This retrospective, longitudinal clinical study investigated the longevity up to 20 years of posterior restorations placed with 3 universal composites (Charisma, Herculite XR, Z100) and of anterior restorations placed with 2 universal composites (Charisma, Herculite XR). METHODS: Records from 90 patients were retrieved from a private practice (374 posterior, 219 anterior restorations). Clinical evaluation was performed by the FDI criteria. Survival analysis was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method and Log-Rank test, and factors associated with failure by multivariate Cox regression with shared frailty. RESULTS: In the first 10 years, almost 95% of the restorations were satisfactory, showing increased failure thereafter. Charisma showed the most failures in anterior and posterior areas. Annual failure rates varied between 0.3% and 2.5%, with slightly better performance for anterior restorations. Fracture (posterior) and aesthetics (anterior) were the main reasons for failure. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Differences were observed between restorative materials with different properties, but these became apparent only after more than 10 years of clinical service. The present study provides evidence that in a patient group with low caries risk, anterior and posterior restorations placed with universal composites may have excellent long-term clinical performance.

Item does not contain fulltext, This practice-based retrospective study evaluated the survival of resin composite restorations in posterior teeth, focusing on the influence of potential patient risk factors. In total, 306 posterior composite restorations placed in 44 adult patients were investigated after 10 to 18 yrs. The history of each restoration was extracted from the dental records, and a clinical evaluation was performed with those still in situ. The patient risk status was assessed for caries and "occlusal-stress" (bruxism-related). Statistical analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox-regression multivariate analysis. In total, 30% of the restorations failed, of which 82% were found in patients with 1 or 2 risk factors. Secondary caries was the main reason of failure within caries-risk patients, whereas fracture was the main reason in "occlusal-stress-risk" patients. The patient variables gender and age did not significantly affect survival, but risk did (p < .001). Tooth type (p < .001), arch (p = .013), and pulpal vitality (p = .003) significantly affected restoration survival. Within the limits of this retrospective evaluation, the survival of restorations is affected by patient risk factors, which should be included in survival analyses of restorations.

Item does not contain fulltext, Resin composites have become the first choice for direct posterior restorations and are increasingly popular among clinicians and patients. Meanwhile, a number of clinical reports in the literature have discussed the durability of these restorations over long periods. In this review, we have searched the dental literature looking for clinical trials investigating posterior composite restorations over periods of at least 5 years of follow-up published between 1996 and 2011. The search resulted in 34 selected studies. 90% of the clinical studies indicated that annual failure rates between 1% and 3% can be achieved with Class I and II posterior composite restorations depending on several factors such as tooth type and location, operator, and socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral elements. The material properties showed a minor effect on longevity. The main reasons for failure in the long term are secondary caries, related to the individual caries risk, and fracture, related to the presence of a lining or the strength of the material used as well as patient factors such as bruxism. Repair is a viable alternative to replacement, and it can increase significantly the lifetime of restorations. As observed in the literature reviewed, a long survival rate for posterior composite restorations can be expected provided that patient, operator and materials factors are taken into account when the restorations are performed.