F Beck1, S Lettner2, A Graf3, B Bitriol4, N Dumitrescu5, P Bauer3, A Moritz4, A Schedle6. 1. Division of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Competence Center for Dental Materials, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 2. Division of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Karl Donath Laboratory for Hard Tissue and Biomaterial Research, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 3. Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Division of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Competence Center for Dental Materials, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 5. Division of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 6. Division of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Competence Center for Dental Materials, University Clinic of Dentistry Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: andreas.schedle@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Mobin Yahyazadehfar; George Huyang; Xiaohong Wang; Yuwei Fan; Dwayne Arola; Jirun Sun Journal: Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 7.328
Authors: André L Faria-E-Silva; Andressa Dos Santos; Angela Tang; Emerson M Girotto; Carmem S Pfeifer Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 5.304