Michael Raedel1, Andrea Hartmann2, Heinz-Werner Priess3, Steffen Bohm4, Stefanie Samietz5, Ioannis Konstantinidis6, Michael H Walter7. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Michael.Raedel@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. AGENON, Gesellschaft für Forschung und Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen, Kaunstraße 21, 14163 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: ah@agenon.de. 3. AGENON, Gesellschaft für Forschung und Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen, Kaunstraße 21, 14163 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: priess@agenon.de. 4. AGENON, Gesellschaft für Forschung und Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen, Kaunstraße 21, 14163 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: bohm@agenon.de. 5. Policlinic of Prosthetic Dentistry, Gerodontology and Biomaterials, Center of Oral Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Rotgerberstr. 8, 17475 Greifswald, Germany. Electronic address: samietzs@uni-greifswald.de. 6. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: ioannis.konstantinidis@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 7. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Michael.Walter@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine re-interventions after restorative treatment. METHODS: The data was collected from the digital database of a major German national health insurance company. Only permanent teeth were observed. Placing a permanent restoration other than a crown regardless of involved surfaces and material was the study intervention. The data did not allow for a differentiation between fillings and inlays that were estimated only a very small portion of the restorations. Success was defined as not undergoing any restorative re-intervention with fillings or inlays on the same tooth (primary outcome) and assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over four years. An additional analysis was conducted rating "crowning" and "extraction" of respective teeth as target events. Differences were tested with the Log-Rank-test. A multivariate Cox regression analyses was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 17,024,344 restorations placed in 4,825,408 anterior teeth and 9,973,177 posterior teeth could be traced. Focussing on the primary outcome re-intervention, the cumulative four-year success rate was 69.9% for one surface restorations, 74.8% for two surface restorations, 66.6% for three surface restorations and 61.0% for four surface and more extended restorations. These differences were significant (p<0.0001). Focussing on all three target events re-intervention, crowning and extraction, the cumulative four-year success rate was 66.1% for one surface restorations, 67.5% for two surface restorations, 63.0% for three surface restorations and 55.8% for four surface and more extended restorations. The number of restoration surfaces as well as the tooth position remained significant in the multivariate Cox regression. CONCLUSIONS: The sustainability of restorative dental treatment under the terms and conditions of the German national health insurance system shows room for improvement. From a public health perspective, special focus should be laid on primary and secondary prevention to minimize the restorative treatment need. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study shows that re-interventions are observed regularly after restorative treatment. Therefore, preventive and restorative strategies should be revisited and optimised.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine re-interventions after restorative treatment. METHODS: The data was collected from the digital database of a major German national health insurance company. Only permanent teeth were observed. Placing a permanent restoration other than a crown regardless of involved surfaces and material was the study intervention. The data did not allow for a differentiation between fillings and inlays that were estimated only a very small portion of the restorations. Success was defined as not undergoing any restorative re-intervention with fillings or inlays on the same tooth (primary outcome) and assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over four years. An additional analysis was conducted rating "crowning" and "extraction" of respective teeth as target events. Differences were tested with the Log-Rank-test. A multivariate Cox regression analyses was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 17,024,344 restorations placed in 4,825,408 anterior teeth and 9,973,177 posterior teeth could be traced. Focussing on the primary outcome re-intervention, the cumulative four-year success rate was 69.9% for one surface restorations, 74.8% for two surface restorations, 66.6% for three surface restorations and 61.0% for four surface and more extended restorations. These differences were significant (p<0.0001). Focussing on all three target events re-intervention, crowning and extraction, the cumulative four-year success rate was 66.1% for one surface restorations, 67.5% for two surface restorations, 63.0% for three surface restorations and 55.8% for four surface and more extended restorations. The number of restoration surfaces as well as the tooth position remained significant in the multivariate Cox regression. CONCLUSIONS: The sustainability of restorative dental treatment under the terms and conditions of the German national health insurance system shows room for improvement. From a public health perspective, special focus should be laid on primary and secondary prevention to minimize the restorative treatment need. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study shows that re-interventions are observed regularly after restorative treatment. Therefore, preventive and restorative strategies should be revisited and optimised.
Authors: Michael Raedel; Yvonne Wagner; Heinz-Werner Priess; Stefanie Samietz; Steffen Bohm; Michael H Walter Journal: Caries Res Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Naia Bustamante-Hernández; Jose María Montiel-Company; Carlos Bellot-Arcís; José Félix Mañes-Ferrer; María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Lucía Fernández-Estevan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Michael Raedel; Barbara Noack; Heinz-Werner Priess; Steffen Bohm; Michael H Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.573