Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies

被引:114
作者
Beck, F. [1 ,4 ]
Lettner, S. [1 ,5 ]
Graf, A. [2 ]
Bitriol, B. [3 ,4 ]
Dumitrescu, N. [3 ]
Bauer, P. [2 ]
Moritz, A. [3 ,4 ]
Schedle, A. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Vienna, Univ Clin Dent Vienna, Div Oral Surg, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[2] Med Univ Vienna, Ctr Med Stat Informat & Intelligent Syst, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[3] Med Univ Vienna, Univ Clin Dent Vienna, Div Conservat Dent & Periodontol, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[4] Med Univ Vienna, Univ Clin Dent Vienna, Competence Ctr Dent Mat, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[5] Med Univ Vienna, Univ Clin Dent Vienna, Karl Donath Lab Hard Tissue & Biomat Res, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
关键词
Clinical trials; Longevity; Posterior resin composites; Review; RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL; CLASS-II RESTORATIONS; DIRECT COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS; SELF-ETCHING ADHESIVE; ONE-STEP; MARGINAL ADAPTATION; PERMANENT TEETH; DOUBLE-BLIND; FOLLOW-UP; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.004
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives. The aim of this study is to analyze the survival of posterior composite restorations published within the last 19 years (1996-2015). Methods. In this study only prospective, clinical trials with specification of the failure rate according to Class I/II composite fillings were included. Studies were analyzed according to the observation period (all studies vs. short-term vs. long-term studies). Retrospective studies and/or open laminate studies, tunnel restorations and Class V restorations were excluded. The following variables possibly influencing the failure rate were extracted from the studies: observation period, recall rate, average age of patients, number of patients, ratio of Class I/II fillings, number of restorations, ratio of premolars/molars, operator, method of isolation, bonding generation and filler size. Results. A total of 88 studies were included for statistical analysis. The observation period of the studies varied between 1 and 17 years, while most of the studies did not last longer than 5 years. Fracture of the restorations, secondary caries and marginal gap are the main causes for failure in the first 5 years (in descending order), while fracture and secondary caries are similarly distributed in long-term studies. Variables of investigation differed greatly in significance according to the respective observation period. The observation period, the recall rate, the ratio of Class I/II fillings and the number of restorations and patients had a significant influence on the overall failure rate when including all studies (short- and long-term). A linear correlation between the observation period and the failure rate was observed. In long-term studies these variables were not significant any longer. No significant difference in the failure rates between the materials per study was observed. The most common commercial composites investigated were: Tetric Ceram, Surefil, Filtek Supreme (incl. XT), Filtek Z250. The mean annual failure rate was 1.46% (+/- 1.74%) for short-term studies and 1.97% (+/- 1.53) for long-term studies. There is still a big need for clinical studies lasting longer than 5 years, as failure rates of composite restorations in posterior teeth increases with longer observation periods. Significance. A decreasing failure rate with an increasing recall rate as observed in our study suggests a patient selection in regard to availability and dental awareness. Internationally standardized evaluation criteria are mandatory in order to allow comparisons of the outcomes of clinical studies. (C) 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:958 / 985
页数:28
相关论文
共 105 条
  • [1] ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, 2001, AM DENT ASS ACC PROG, P1
  • [2] 10-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching adhesive system
    Akimoto, N.
    Takamizu, M.
    Momoi, Y.
    [J]. OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, 2007, 32 (01) : 3 - 10
  • [3] An eighteen-month clinical evaluation of posterior restorations with fluoride releasing adhesive and composite systems
    Akimoto, Naotake
    Ohmori, Kaoru
    Hanabusa, Masao
    Momoi, Yasuko
    [J]. DENTAL MATERIALS JOURNAL, 2011, 30 (03) : 411 - 418
  • [4] Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Composites in Posterior Restorations: Two-year Results
    Arhun, N.
    Celik, C.
    Yamanel, K.
    [J]. OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, 2010, 35 (04) : 397 - 404
  • [5] Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results
    Baracco, B.
    Perdigao, J.
    Cabrera, E.
    Giraldez, I.
    Ceballos, L.
    [J]. OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, 2012, 37 (02) : 117 - 129
  • [6] Bartlett D, 2006, INT J PROSTHODONT, V19, P613
  • [7] Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials
    Bayne, SC
    Schmalz, G
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2005, 9 (04) : 209 - 214
  • [8] Economic impact of regulating the use of amalgam restorations
    Beazoglou, Tryfon
    Eklund, Stephen
    Heffley, Dennis
    Meiers, Jonathan
    Brown, L. Jackson
    Bailit, Howard
    [J]. PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS, 2007, 122 (05) : 657 - 663
  • [9] One-year evaluation of two hybrid composites placed in a randomized-controlled clinical trial
    Beck, Florian
    Dumitrescu, Nicoleta
    Konig, Franz
    Graf, Alexandra
    Bauer, Peter
    Sperr, Wolfgang
    Moritz, Andreas
    Schedle, Andreas
    [J]. DENTAL MATERIALS, 2014, 30 (08) : 824 - 838
  • [10] Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial
    Bernardo, Mario
    Luis, Henrique
    Martin, Michael D.
    Leroux, Brian G.
    Rue, Tessa
    Leitao, Jorge
    DeRouen, Timothy A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2007, 138 (06) : 775 - 783