Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제38권1호
  • /
  • Pages.11-20
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations

  • Kim, Kyou-Li (Department of Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute) ;
  • NamGung, Cheol (Department of Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute) ;
  • Cho, Byeong-Hoon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute)
  • 투고 : 2012.10.04
  • 심사 : 2012.12.24
  • 발행 : 2013.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: In most retrospective studies, the clinical performance of restorations had not been considered in survival analysis. This study investigated the effect of including the clinically unacceptable cases according to modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria into the failed data on the survival analysis of direct restorations as to the longevity and prognostic variables. Materials and Methods: Nine hundred and sixty-seven direct restorations were evaluated. The data of 204 retreated restorations were collected from the records, and clinical performance of 763 restorations in function was evaluated according to modified USPHS criteria by two observers. The longevity and prognostic variables of the restorations were compared with a factor of involving clinically unacceptable cases into the failures using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard model. Results: The median survival times of amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer were 11.8, 11.0 and 6.8 years, respectively. Glass ionomer showed significantly lower longevity than composite resin and amalgam. When clinically unacceptable restorations were included into the failure, the median survival times of them decreased to 8.9, 9.7 and 6.4 years, respectively. Conclusions: After considering the clinical performance, composite resin was the only material that showed a difference in the longevity (p < 0.05) and the significantly higher relative risk of student group than professor group disappeared in operator groups. Even in the design of retrospective study, clinical evaluation needs to be included.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Mjor IA. Amalgam and composite resin restorations: longevity and reasons for replacement. Replacement of AM restorations. Quality evaluation of dental restorations - criteria for placement and replacement. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1989. p61-68.
  2. Onal B, Pamir T. The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1547-1555. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0085
  3. Chadwick B, Treasure E, Dummer P, Dunstan F, Gilmour A, Jones R, Phillips C, Stevens J, Rees J, Richmond S. Challenges with studies investigating longevity of dental restorations-a critique of a systematic review. J Dent 2001;29:155-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00003-3
  4. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004;29:481-508.
  5. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23:2-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036
  6. Kubo S, Kawasaki A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater J 2011;30:374-383. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2010-191
  7. Goldberg AJ, Rydinge E, Santucci EA, Racz WB. Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res 1984;63:1387-1391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630120901
  8. Arhun N, Celik C, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: twoyear results. Oper Dent 2010;35:397-404. https://doi.org/10.2341/09-345-C
  9. Daou MH, Tavernier B, Meyer JM. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2008;118:290-295
  10. Alves dos Santos MP, Luiz RR, Maia LC. Randomized trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results. J Dent 2010;38:451-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.02.004
  11. Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MC. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. J Dent 2007;35:156-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.006
  12. Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 2002;27:117-123.
  13. Roulet JF. Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam-results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Investig 1997; 1:40-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050007
  14. Forss H, Widstrom E. From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand 2001;59:57-62 https://doi.org/10.1080/000163501750157090
  15. Goldstein GR. The longevity of direct and indirect posterior restorations is uncertain and may be affected by a number of dentist-, patient-, and material-related factors. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2010;10:30-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.015
  16. Antony K, Genser D, Heibinger C, Windisch F. Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials. GMS Health Technol Assess 2008;4:Doc 12.
  17. Rho YJ, Namgung C, Jin BH, Lim BS, Cho BH. Longevity of direct restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities: a retrospective study. Oper Dent (in press)
  18. Mjör IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55:58-63. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359709091943
  19. Mjor IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 2000;58:97-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/000163500429208
  20. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguércio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006;34:427-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.006
  21. Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 1999;30:234-242.
  22. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, DeRouen TA. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:775-783. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0265
  23. Van Nieuwhenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 2003;31:395-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00084-8
  24. Demaco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28:87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003

피인용 문헌

  1. Longitudinal Results of a 10-year Clinical Trial of Repair of Amalgam Restorations vol.40, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2341/14-045-C
  2. Longevity of resin-bonded fixed partial dental prostheses made with metal alloys vol.20, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1619-9
  3. Aumento de longevidad de restauraciones de resinas compuestas y de su unión adhesiva. Revisión de tema vol.27, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfo.v27n1a7
  4. Effect of a novel prime‐and‐rinse approach on short‐ and long‐term dentin bond strength of self‐etch adhesives vol.127, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12660
  5. A 2-year clinical evaluation of direct and semi-direct resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomized clinical study vol.24, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03011-x