Ulla Palotie1, Anna K Eronen2, Kimmo Vehkalahti3, Miira M Vehkalahti4. 1. City of Helsinki, Department of Social Services and Health Care, Metropolitan Area Department of Oral Special Care, P.O. BOX 6670, FI-00099 Helsinki, Finland. Electronic address: ulla.palotie@fimnet.fi. 2. Social Statistics, Department of Social Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 18, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland. 3. Centre for Research Methods, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 18, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 41, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this patient document-based retrospective study among 25- to 30-year-old Finnish adults was to evaluate longevity of 2- and 3-surface posterior restorations according to type of tooth, size of restoration, and restorative material used. METHODS: Data were extracted from electronic patient files of the Helsinki City Public Dental Service (PDS), Finland. A total of 5542 2- and 3-surface posterior composite and amalgam restorations were followed indirectly from 2002 to 2015. Longevity of restorations was illustrated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Annual failure rates (AFRs) of the restorations were calculated separately by type of tooth, size, and material. Differences in longevity were statistically tested with log-rank tests. RESULTS: Composite restorations formed the majority (93%). The longest median survival times and the smallest failure rates were found for teeth in the upper jaw, for premolars, and for 2-surface restorations. Median survival time of all restorations was 9.9 years (95% CI 9.6, 10.2) and re-intervention of restorations occurred less often in the maxilla (AFR 4.0%) than in the mandible (AFR 4.7%). Median survival time of composite restorations was greater for 2-surface than for 3-surface restorations: in premolars 12.3 vs. 9.6 years (p<0.001) and in molars, 9.2 vs. 6.3 years (p<0.001); for molar amalgams the difference (8.0 vs. 6.3 years) was non-significant (p=0.38). Median survival time of 2- and 3-surface restorations in premolars exceeded that in molars (12.0 vs. 8.7 years; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Longevity of posterior composite multisurface restoration is comparable to amalgam longevity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Regarding material choices for posterior multisurface restorations, composite and amalgam perform quite similarly in molars, 3-surface restoration being challenge for both materials.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this patient document-based retrospective study among 25- to 30-year-old Finnish adults was to evaluate longevity of 2- and 3-surface posterior restorations according to type of tooth, size of restoration, and restorative material used. METHODS: Data were extracted from electronic patient files of the Helsinki City Public Dental Service (PDS), Finland. A total of 5542 2- and 3-surface posterior composite and amalgam restorations were followed indirectly from 2002 to 2015. Longevity of restorations was illustrated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Annual failure rates (AFRs) of the restorations were calculated separately by type of tooth, size, and material. Differences in longevity were statistically tested with log-rank tests. RESULTS: Composite restorations formed the majority (93%). The longest median survival times and the smallest failure rates were found for teeth in the upper jaw, for premolars, and for 2-surface restorations. Median survival time of all restorations was 9.9 years (95% CI 9.6, 10.2) and re-intervention of restorations occurred less often in the maxilla (AFR 4.0%) than in the mandible (AFR 4.7%). Median survival time of composite restorations was greater for 2-surface than for 3-surface restorations: in premolars 12.3 vs. 9.6 years (p<0.001) and in molars, 9.2 vs. 6.3 years (p<0.001); for molar amalgams the difference (8.0 vs. 6.3 years) was non-significant (p=0.38). Median survival time of 2- and 3-surface restorations in premolars exceeded that in molars (12.0 vs. 8.7 years; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Longevity of posterior composite multisurface restoration is comparable to amalgam longevity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Regarding material choices for posterior multisurface restorations, composite and amalgam perform quite similarly in molars, 3-surface restoration being challenge for both materials.
Authors: Thankam Paul Thyvalikakath; William D Duncan; Zasim Siddiqui; Michelle LaPradd; George Eckert; Titus Schleyer; Donald Brad Rindal; Mark Jurkovich; Tracy Shea; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 2.342