Search

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the literature to compare the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct resin composite and amalgam restorations performed in permanent teeth., Materials and Methods: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Lilacs, BBO, Web of Science, SciELO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, and gray literature were searched to identify longitudinal clinical studies related to the research question. No publication year or language restriction was considered. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model at a 5% significance level., Results: From 1224 potentially eligible studies, thirteen were selected for full-text analysis, and three were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There was no difference in the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct restorations (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.51-2.83), either for resin composite (p = 0.97) or amalgam (p = 0.51) restorations. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was very low., Conclusion: Based on the very low certainty of evidence, the repair of direct restorations does not present a significant difference in the risk of failure when compared to replacements in permanent teeth., Clinical Relevance: Restoration repair is a procedure that is included in the minimal intervention principle for improvement of tooth longevity in that the risk of failure of repaired partially defective restorations in permanent teeth seems similar to that of replacement. Further studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.

Purpose: This clinical retrospective study evaluated the survival and risk factors associated with failures of resin-based composite restorations in primary teeth., Methods: A total of 212 restorations in primary teeth from records of 76 high caries-risk children were included. The restorations' longevity for up to six years of follow-up was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival test. Multivariate Cox regression analysis with shared frailty was used to evaluate the factors associated with failures (P<0.05)., Results: Mean survival time was 4.3 years (95 percent confidence interval (CI) equals 4.0 to 4.6). The survival of the restorations reached 35.3 percent, up to the sixth year, with an annual failure rate of 18.8 percent. Restorations placed in teeth with pulp treatment had a lower survival rate than those in vital teeth (hazard ratio [HR] equals 2.16, 95 percent CI equals 1.02 to 4.58). Patients who did not use standard fluoride toothpaste had more risk of failure in their restorations (HR equals 6.12, 95 percent CI equals 1.47 to 25.49)., Conclusions: Composite restorations placed in high caries-risk children presented limited survival after six years of follow-up. Standard fluoride toothpaste use was a protection factor, while pulp treatment was a risk factor for restoration failure.