Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations

被引:37
|
作者
Kanzow, Philipp [1 ]
Wiegand, Annette [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Gottingen, Dept Prevent Dent Periodontol & Cariol, Gottingen, Germany
关键词
Minimally invasive dentistry; Composite materials; Restoration repair; Restorative dentistry; Success; Survival; LONGEVITY; SURVIVAL; REASONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.dental.2019.11.001
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective. Our retrospective study aimed to assess the impact of repairs on the longevity of anterior and posterior direct composite restorations and to compare longevity of repaired and replacement restorations. Methods. Patient records were retrospectively screened for anterior and/or posterior composite restorations with 2+ surfaces placed in permanent teeth between 2000 and 2015. During follow-up, repaired and replaced restorations were assessed and mean annual failure rates (mAFR) calculated. Outcome was considered in three levels: Success (no further intervention), survival 1 (first repair = survival, second repair = failure) and survival 2 (more than one repair=survival, all surfaces repaired = failure). Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier statistics, log-rank tests, and multi-variate Cox-regression analyses with shared frailty (p < 0.05). Results. 8542 initial restorations placed in 3239 patients were included (4.7 +/- 4.4 years followup, 2.5 +/- 0.7 surfaces). Longevity of initial restorations was prolonged by repair(s) (after 10 years: success: 68.3%, mAFR: 3.7%; survival 1: 77.3%, mAFR: 2.5%; survival 2: 80.4%, mAFR: 2.2%; p < 0.001). 616 repaired restorations (4.9 +/- 4.2 years follow-up, 3.5 +/- 1.0 surfaces) and 264 replacement restorations (5.6 +/- 4.1 years follow-up, 3.0 +/- 0.8 surfaces) were analyzed. Success of repaired restorations amounted to 43.4% after 10 years (mAFR: 8.0%), further repair(s) prolonged survival (survival 1: 65.7%, mAFR: 4.1%; survival 2: 74.8%, mAFR: 2.9%; p < 0.001). Success of replacement restorations amounted to 48.6% after 10 years (mAFR: 7.0%), repair(s) prolonged survival (survival 1: 67.4%, mAFR: 3.9%, p = 0.044; survival 2: 74.1%, mAFR: 3.0%, p = 0.003). Significance. Repairs are suitable to increase the survival of restorations; repaired restorations last as long as replacements. (C) 2019 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:108 / 118
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Repair vs replacement of direct composite restorations: a survey of teaching and operative techniques in Oceania
    Brunton, Paul. A.
    Ghazali, Amna
    Tarif, Zahidah H.
    Loch, Carolina
    Lynch, Christopher
    Wilson, Nairn
    Blum, Igor R.
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2017, 59 : 62 - 67
  • [2] Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite
    Sharif, Mohammad O.
    Catleugh, Melanie
    Merry, Alison
    Tickle, Martin
    Dunne, Stephen M.
    Brunton, Paul
    Aggarwal, Vishal R.
    Chong, Lee Yee
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2014, (02):
  • [3] Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite
    Sharif, Mohammad O.
    Catleugh, Melanie
    Merry, Alison
    Tickle, Martin
    Dunne, Stephen M.
    Brunton, Paul
    Aggarwal, Vishal R.
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2010, (02):
  • [4] Digital photography vs. clinical assessment of resin composite restorations
    Cecília Vilela Vasconcelos Barros de Almeida
    Karen Pintado-Palomino
    João Henrique Parise Fortes
    Raphael Jurca Gonçalves da Motta
    Bruna Neves de Freitas
    Wilson Matsumoto
    Maria Tereza Moura de Oliveira Cavalcanti
    Josué Alves
    Camila Tirapelli
    Odontology, 2021, 109 : 184 - 192
  • [5] 12-year Survival of Composite vs. Amalgam Restorations
    Opdam, N. J. M.
    Bronkhorst, E. M.
    Loomans, B. A. C.
    Huysmans, M. -C. D. N. J. M.
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2010, 89 (10) : 1063 - 1067
  • [6] Digital photography vs. clinical assessment of resin composite restorations
    Vasconcelos Barros de Almeida, Cecilia Vilela
    Pintado-Palomino, Karen
    Parise Fortes, Joao Henrique
    Goncalves da Motta, Raphael Jurca
    de Freitas, Bruna Neves
    Matsumoto, Wilson
    Moura de Oliveira Cavalcanti, Maria Tereza
    Alves, Josue
    Tirapelli, Camila
    ODONTOLOGY, 2021, 109 (01) : 184 - 192
  • [7] Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations
    Al-Asmar, Ayah A.
    HA Sabrah, Alaa
    Abd-Raheam, Islam M.
    Ismail, Noor H.
    Oweis, Yara G.
    SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL, 2023, 35 (03) : 275 - 281
  • [8] Repair versus replacement of defective composite restorations in dental schools in Germany
    Blum, Igor R.
    Lynch, Christopher D.
    Schriever, Anette
    Heidemann, Detlef
    Wilson, Nairn H. F.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2011, 19 (02): : 56 - 61
  • [9] REPAIR VS. REPLACEMENT PROBLEM: A STOCHASTIC CONTROL APPROACH.
    L'Ecuyer, Pierre
    Haurie, Alain
    Optimal Control Applications and Methods, 1987, 8 (03) : 219 - 230
  • [10] Tricuspid Valve Replacement vs. Repair in Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation
    Chang, Hyoung Woo
    Jeong, Dong Seop
    Cho, Yang Hyun
    Sung, Kiick
    Kim, Wook Sung
    Lee, Young Tak
    Park, Pyo Won
    CIRCULATION JOURNAL, 2017, 81 (03) : 330 - 338