Search

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: 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, 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: 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.