Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-01-2020 | Composite Restoration | Original Article

Longevity of posterior composite and compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study

Authors: Andreas Pummer, Fabian Cieplik, Milan Nikolić, Wolfgang Buchalla, Karl-Anton Hiller, Gottfried Schmalz

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Objectives

The aims of this study were (i) to assess cumulative survival rates of class II resin-based composite and compomer restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period and (ii) to analyze the influence of different types of anesthesia and different localizations of the restorations in the teeth.

Methods

Patient charts of a private practice for pediatric dentistry were screened for class II resin-based composite (Spectrum TPH3) and compomer (Dyract Posterior; both Dentsply DeTrey) restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period used with Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M-ESPE). One restoration per patient (age ≤ 6 years at placement) was randomly selected.

Results

Two hundred sixty restorations were included (43% resin-based composites, 57% compomers). After 5 years, cumulative survival rates were 43% for resin-based composite and 49% for compomer restorations with no statistically significant differences. There was a tendency for higher survival rates for restorations placed under N₂O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia. Distal-occlusal compomer restorations showed significantly lower survival rates (p = 0.003) as compared to mesial-occlusal compomer restorations.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the study, we conclude that type of restorative material as well as the type of anesthesia do not influence restoration survival rates, although restorations placed in patients receiving N₂O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia tend to perform better as compared with patients receiving no anesthesia or only local infiltration.

Clinical relevance

Resin-based composite and compomer restorations show similar survival rates of more than 43% (annual failure rates less than 11.5%) after 5 years for restoration of primary molars.

Vos T et al (2016) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388(10053):1545–1602. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6 CrossRef

Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Jugendzahnpflege e.V. (2016) Epidemiologische Begleituntersuchungen zur Gruppenprophylaxe. https://www.daj.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF_Downloads/Epi_2016/Epi_final_BB1801_final.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2018

Featherstone JD (2000) The science and practice of caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 131(7):887–899CrossRefPubMed

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2005-2006) Guideline on pediatric restorative dentistry. Pediatr Dent 27(7 Suppl):122–129

Tran LA, Messer LB (2003) Clinicians’ choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J 48(4):221–232CrossRefPubMed

Pair RL, Udin RD, Tanbonliong T (2004) Materials used to restore class II lesions in primary molars: a survey of California pediatric dentists. Pediatr Dent 26(6):501–507PubMed

Antony K, Genser D, Hiebinger C et al (2008) Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials. GMS Health Technol Assess 4:Doc12PubMedPubMedCentral

Fuks AB (2015) The use of amalgam in pediatric dentistry: new insights and reappraising the tradition. Pediatr Dent 37(2):125–132PubMed

Forss H, Widstrom E (2003) The post-amalgam era: a selection of materials and their longevity in the primary and young permanent dentitions. Int J Paediatr Dent 13(3):158–164CrossRefPubMed

10.

Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D (2009) Biocompatibility of dental materials. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin

11.

Collection des traités des Nations Unies. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-17&chapter=27&clang=_en. Accessed 21 Aug 2017

12.

Council of the European Union, European Parliament (2017) Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008

13.

Vittoba Setty J, Srinivasan I (2016) Knowledge and awareness of primary teeth and their importance among parents in Bengaluru City, India. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 9(1):56–61. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1334 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Goenka P, Sarawgi A, Marwah N, Gumber P, Dutta S (2014) Simple fixed functional space maintainer. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 7(3):225–228. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1272 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Md I, Singh Dhull K, Nandlal B et al (2014) Biological restoration in pediatric dentistry: a brief insight. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 7(3):197–201. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1264 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB et al (2009) Space maintenance. Int J Paediatr Dent 19(3):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00951.x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Seale NS, Randall R (2015) The use of stainless steel crowns: a systematic literature review. Pediatr Dent 37(2):145–160PubMed

18.

Rosenblatt A (2008) The Hall technique is an effective treatment option for carious primary molar teeth. Evid Based Dent 9(2):44–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400579 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pollington S, van Noort R (2008) A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up. Am J Dent 21(1):49–52PubMed

20.

Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Borges AFS, Silva TN, Puppin-Rontani RM, Garcia-Godoy F (2006) Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 34(6):381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Meyer JM, Cattani-Lorente MA, Dupuis V (1998) Compomers: between glass-ionomer cements and composites. Biomaterials 19(6):529–539CrossRefPubMed

22.

Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, de Oliveira LJC, Conde MCM, Demarco FF, Corrêa MB (2018) Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent 28(2):123–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12346 CrossRefPubMed

23.

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2004) Clinical guideline on pediatric restorative dentistry. Pediatr Dent 26(7 Suppl):106–114

24.

Dougherty N (2009) The dental patient with special needs: a review of indications for treatment under general anesthesia. Spec Care Dentist 29(1):17–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-4505.2008.00057.x CrossRefPubMed

25.

Shin B, Yoo S, Kim J, Kim S, Kim J (2016) A survey of dental treatment under general anesthesia in a Korean university hospital pediatric dental clinic. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 16(3):203–208. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2016.16.3.203 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Eidelman E, Faibis S, Peretz B (2000) A comparison of restorations for children with early childhood caries treated under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. Pediatr Dent 22(1):33–37PubMed

27.

Schroth RJ, Pang JL, Levi JA et al (2014) Trends in pediatric dental surgery for severe early childhood caries in Manitoba, Canada. J Can Dent Assoc 80:e65PubMed

28.

Al-Eheideb AA, Herman NG (2003) Outcomes of dental procedures performed on children under general anesthesia. J Clin Pediatr Dent 27(2):181–183CrossRefPubMed

29.

Becker DE, Rosenberg M (2008) Nitrous oxide and the inhalation anesthetics. Anesth Prog 55(4):124–130; quiz 131-2. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-55.4.124 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Franks NP (2008) General anaesthesia: from molecular targets to neuronal pathways of sleep and arousal. Nat Rev Neurosci 9(5):370–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2372 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Int Dent J 57(5):300–302CrossRefPubMed

32.

Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BAC (2007) A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 23(1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Casagrande L, Seminario AT, Correa MB, Werle SB, Maltz M, Demarco FF, Araujo FB (2017) Longevity and associated risk factors in adhesive restorations of young permanent teeth after complete and selective caries removal: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 21(3):847–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1832-1 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Sedgwick P (2014) Retrospective cohort studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ 348:g1072. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1072 CrossRef

35.

Sedgwick P (2013) Prospective cohort studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ 347:f6726. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6726 CrossRef

36.

Euser AM, Zoccali C, Jager KJ, Dekker FW (2009) Cohort studies: prospective versus retrospective. Nephron Clin Pract 113(3):c214–c217. https://doi.org/10.1159/000235241 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Frenz MB, Dunckley P, Camporota L, Jewell DP, Travis SPL (2005) Comparison between prospective and retrospective evaluation of Crohn’s disease activity index. Am J Gastroenterol 100(5):1117–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.30487.x CrossRefPubMed

38.

Ukai T, Shikata S, Nakayama T, Takemura YC (2017) A comparison of the results of prospective and retrospective cohort studies in the field of digestive surgery. Surg Today 47(7):789–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-017-1479-9 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Bücher K, Metz I, Pitchika V, Hickel R, Kühnisch J (2015) Survival characteristics of composite restorations in primary teeth. Clin Oral Investig 19(7):1653–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1389-9 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Alves DSM, Luiz RR, Maia LC (2010) Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results. J Dent 38(6):451–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.02.004 CrossRef

41.

Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Mönting JS (2001) Three-year follow up assessment of class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J Dent 14(3):148–152PubMed

42.

Hse KM, Wei SH (1997) Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 128(8):1088–1096CrossRefPubMed

43.

Di Lenarda R, Cadenaro M, De Stefano Dorigo E (2000) Cervical compomer restorations: the role of cavity etching in a 48-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 25(5):382–387PubMed

44.

Kugel G, Perry RD, Hoang E, Hoang T, Ferrari M (1998) Dyract compomer: comparison of total etch vs. no etch technique. Gen Dent 46(6):604–606PubMed

45.

Peumans M, de MJ, van Landuyt K et al (2007) Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 9(1):7–10PubMed

46.

Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ et al (2008) Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? J Adhes Dent 10(5):339–344PubMed

47.

Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T et al (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7(2):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Daou MH, Tavernier B, Meyer JM (2009) Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 34(1):53–58CrossRefPubMed

49.

Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers S et al (2010) The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 20(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01017.x CrossRefPubMed

50.

Varpio M (1993) Clinical aspects of restorative treatment in the primary dentition. Swed Dent J Suppl 96:1–47PubMed

51.

Papathanasiou AG, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG (1994) The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 16(4):282–288PubMed

52.

Pinto GDS, Oliveira LJC, Romano AR, Schardosim LR, Bonow MLM, Pacce M, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Torriani DD (2014) Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: results from a paediatric dental clinic. J Dent 42(10):1248–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.08.005 CrossRef

53.

Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G (1992) Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 16(3):81–86PubMed

54.

Zahdan BA, Szabo A, Gonzalez CD, Okunseri EM, Okunseri CE (2018) Survival rates of stainless steel crowns and multi-surface composite restorations placed by dental students in a pediatric clinic. J Clin Pediatr Dent 42(3):167–172. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-42.3.1 CrossRefPubMed

55.

Bayne SC, Schmalz G (2005) Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9(4):209–214CrossRefPubMed

56.

Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT (2004) Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci 112(2):188–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00117.x CrossRefPubMed

57.

Bhatt S, Ayer CD, Price RB et al (2015) Effect of curing light and restoration location on energy delivered. Compend Contin Educ Dent 36(3):208–210 212, 214PubMed

58.

Price RBT, Felix CM, Whalen JM (2010) Factors affecting the energy delivered to simulated class I and class v preparations. J Can Dent Assoc 76:a94PubMed

Title: Longevity of posterior composite and compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study
Authors: Andreas Pummer
Fabian Cieplik
Milan Nikolić
Wolfgang Buchalla
Karl-Anton Hiller
Gottfried Schmalz
Publication date: 01-01-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Composite Restoration
Caries
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02911-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Longevity of posterior composite and compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

The outcome of a temporomandibular joint compression test for the diagnosis of arthralgia is confounded by concurrent myalgia

Short ultrasonic debridement with adjunctive low-concentrated hypochlorite/amino acid gel during periodontal maintenance: randomized clinical trial of 12 months

Effects of fast- and slow-setting calcium silicate–based root-end filling materials on the outcome of endodontic microsurgery: a retrospective study up to 6 years

Bibliometric analysis of research trends and characteristics of oral potentially malignant disorders

Maxillofacial injuries in severely injured patients after road traffic accidents—a retrospective evaluation of the TraumaRegister DGU® 1993–2014

Different polishing methods for zirconia: impact on surface, optical, and mechanical properties