Françoise H van de Sande1, Paulo A Da Rosa Rodolpho2, Gabriela R Basso3, Rômulo Patias3, Quéren F da Rosa3, Flávio F Demarco3, Niek J Opdam4, Maximiliano S Cenci3. 1. School of Dentistry, IMED Faculdade Meridional, Rua Senador Pinheiro, 304, 99070-220 Passo Fundo, Brazil; Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 96015-560 Pelotas, Brazil. Electronic address: fvandesande@gmail.com. 2. Av. Duque de Castilhos, 1348, s. 203, 95010-000 Caxias do Sul, Brazil. 3. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 96015-560 Pelotas, Brazil. 4. Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525 EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Advantages and disadvantages of using intermediate layers underneath resin-composite restorations have been presented under different perspectives. Yet, few long-term clinical studies evaluated the effect of glass-ionomer bases on restoration survival. The present study investigated the influence of glass-ionomer-cement base in survival of posterior composite restorations, compared to restorations without base. METHODS: Original datasets of one dental practice were used to retrieve data retrospectively. The presence or absence of an intermediate layer of glass-ionomer-cement was the main factor under analysis, considering survival, annual failure rate and types of failure as outcomes. Other investigated factors were: patient gender, jaw, tooth, number of restored surfaces and composite. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox-regression. RESULTS: In total 632 restorations in 97 patients were investigated. Annual failure rates percentages up to 18-years were 1.9% and 2.1% for restorations with and without base, respectively. In restorations with glass-ionomer-cement base, fracture was the predominant reason for failure, corresponding to 57.8% of total failures. Failure type distribution was different (p=0.007) comparing restorations with and without base, but no effect in the overall survival of restorations was found (p=0.313). SIGNIFICANCE: The presence of a glass-ionomer-cement base did not affect the survival of resin-composite restorations in the investigated sample. Acceptable annual failure rates after 18-years can be achieved with both techniques, leading to the perspective that an intermediate layer, placed during an interim treatment, may be maintained without clinical detriment, but no improvement in survival should be expected based on such measure.
OBJECTIVE: Advantages and disadvantages of using intermediate layers underneath resin-composite restorations have been presented under different perspectives. Yet, few long-term clinical studies evaluated the effect of glass-ionomer bases on restoration survival. The present study investigated the influence of glass-ionomer-cement base in survival of posterior composite restorations, compared to restorations without base. METHODS: Original datasets of one dental practice were used to retrieve data retrospectively. The presence or absence of an intermediate layer of glass-ionomer-cement was the main factor under analysis, considering survival, annual failure rate and types of failure as outcomes. Other investigated factors were: patient gender, jaw, tooth, number of restored surfaces and composite. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox-regression. RESULTS: In total 632 restorations in 97 patients were investigated. Annual failure rates percentages up to 18-years were 1.9% and 2.1% for restorations with and without base, respectively. In restorations with glass-ionomer-cement base, fracture was the predominant reason for failure, corresponding to 57.8% of total failures. Failure type distribution was different (p=0.007) comparing restorations with and without base, but no effect in the overall survival of restorations was found (p=0.313). SIGNIFICANCE: The presence of a glass-ionomer-cement base did not affect the survival of resin-composite restorations in the investigated sample. Acceptable annual failure rates after 18-years can be achieved with both techniques, leading to the perspective that an intermediate layer, placed during an interim treatment, may be maintained without clinical detriment, but no improvement in survival should be expected based on such measure.
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
Authors: Weber Adad Ricci; Priscila Alfano; Saulo Pamato; Carlos Alberto Dos Santos Cruz; Jefferson Ricardo Pereira Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 3.411