Literature DB >> 25048250

Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

N J M Opdam1, F H van de Sande2, E Bronkhorst3, M S Cenci2, P Bottenberg4, U Pallesen5, P Gaengler6, A Lindberg7, M C D N J M Huysmans3, J W van Dijken7.   

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis, based on individual participant data from several studies, was to investigate the influence of patient-, materials-, and tooth-related variables on the survival of posterior resin composite restorations. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a search resulting in 12 longitudinal studies of direct posterior resin composite restorations with at least 5 years' follow-up. Original datasets were still available, including placement/failure/censoring of restorations, restored surfaces, materials used, reasons for clinical failure, and caries-risk status. A database including all restorations was constructed, and a multivariate Cox regression method was used to analyze variables of interest [patient (age; gender; caries-risk status), jaw (upper; lower), number of restored surfaces, resin composite and adhesive materials, and use of glass-ionomer cement as base/liner (present or absent)]. The hazard ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals were determined, and annual failure rates were calculated for subgroups. Of all restorations, 2,816 (2,585 Class II and 231 Class I) were included in the analysis, of which 569 failed during the observation period. Main reasons for failure were caries and fracture. The regression analyses showed a significantly higher risk of failure for restorations in high-caries-risk individuals and those with a higher number of restored surfaces. © International & American Associations for Dental Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical outcomes; clinical studies/trials; operative dentistry; resin-based composite materials; restorative materials; risk factor(s)

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25048250      PMCID: PMC4293707          DOI: 10.1177/0022034514544217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  36 in total

1.  Fatigue resistance of dentin/composite interfaces with an additional intermediate elastic layer.

Authors:  Jan De Munck; Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Eduardo Coutinho; André Poitevin; Marleen Peumans; Paul Lambrechts; Marc Braem; Bart Van Meerbeek
Journal:  Eur J Oral Sci       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.612

2.  Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in Class II cavities.

Authors:  Jan W V van Dijken; Karin Sunnegårdh-Grönberg
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2006-03-31       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Mario Bernardo; Henrique Luis; Michael D Martin; Brian G Leroux; Tessa Rue; Jorge Leitão; Timothy A DeRouen
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.634

4.  Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.

Authors:  Arlin Kiremitci; Tugba Alpaslan; Sevil Gurgan
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.440

5.  Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: a five-year follow-up.

Authors:  Ticiane Cestari Fagundes; Terezinha Jesus Esteves Barata; Carlos A R Carvalho; Eduardo B Franco; Jan W V van Dijken; Maria Fidela Lima Navarro
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.634

6.  A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results.

Authors:  P Bottenberg; W Jacquet; M Alaerts; F Keulemans
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.

Authors:  Jan W V van Dijken
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.

Authors:  N J M Opdam; E M Bronkhorst; B A C Loomans; M C D N J M Huysmans
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2010-07-26       Impact factor: 6.116

9.  Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations.

Authors:  Niek J M Opdam; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Joost M Roeters; Bas A C Loomans
Journal:  J Adhes Dent       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  105 in total

1.  Good short-term survival rates for posterior resin composite restorations.

Authors:  Ravi Chauhan
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2015-12

2.  Caries risk and number of restored surfaces have impact on the survival of posterior composite restorations.

Authors:  Ben Balevi
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2014-12

3.  At the Interface of Materials and Microbiology: A Call for the Development of Standardized Approaches to Assay Biomaterial-Biofilm Interactions.

Authors:  J Kreth; J L Ferracane; C S Pfeifer; S Khajotia; J Merritt
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 6.116

4.  Glass ionomer cement inhibits secondary caries in an in vitro biofilm model.

Authors:  Norbert Krämer; Miriam Schmidt; Susanne Lücker; Eugen Domann; Roland Frankenberger
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces-a massive data analysis.

Authors:  Michael Raedel; Andrea Hartmann; Steffen Bohm; Heinz-Werner Priess; Stefanie Samietz; Ioannis Konstantinidis; Michael H Walter
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Class II composite resin restorations: faster, easier, predictable.

Authors:  R D Jackson
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 1.626

7.  Risk factors for failure in the management of cervical caries lesions.

Authors:  R J Wierichs; E J Kramer; H Meyer-Lueckel
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  A Chemical Approach to Optimizing Bioactive Glass Dental Composites.

Authors:  S Aponso; J G Ummadi; H Davis; J Ferracane; D Koley
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 6.116

9.  Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches.

Authors:  Bruno Baracco; M Victoria Fuentes; Laura Ceballos
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  Repair or replacement of restorations: A prospective cohort study by dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Valeria V Gordan; Joseph L Riley; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Jeffrey L Fellows; Deborah A Dilbone; Solomon G Brotman; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.634

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.