Top

Published in:

01-12-2017 | Original Article

Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces—a massive data analysis

Authors: Michael Raedel, Andrea Hartmann, Steffen Bohm, Heinz-Werner Priess, Stefanie Samietz, Ioannis Konstantinidis, Michael H. Walter

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 9/2017

Abstract

Objectives

There is only sparse knowledge concerning the outcomes of treatments with posterior permanent restorations in general practice settings. This study aimed at evaluating outcomes based on a large dataset by using a novel approach on a tooth surface basis.

Materials and methods

The study based on routine data from a major German national health insurance company. Respective treatment fee codes allowed for tracking the clinical courses on a tooth surface level. The study intervention was defined as the placement of a restoration on an interproximal or occlusal posterior tooth surface regardless of its actual extension and material on which no information was available. All surfaces restored between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2013 were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted to estimate four-year survival. The primary outcome was a restorative re-intervention on the same tooth surface. Separate analyses were performed for the secondary outcomes “crowning” and “extraction”.

Results

Over ten million interproximal surfaces and eight million occlusal surfaces in nine million posterior teeth had been restored. At 4 years, the cumulative survival rates concerning the primary outcome “re-intervention” for mesial surfaces (81.4%; CI 81.3–81.5%) and distal surfaces (81.2%; CI 81.1–81.2%) differed significantly from those for occlusal surfaces (77.0%; CI 76.9–77.0%). Restored surfaces in premolars showed significantly higher survival rates compared to molars. Four-year survival rates for the secondary outcome “crowning” were 91.9% (CI 91.8—91.9%) for mesial surfaces, 92.1% (CI 92.1–92.2%) for distal surfaces and 93.3% (CI 93.2–93.3%) for occlusal surfaces. The respective rates for the secondary outcome “extraction” were 94.5% (CI 94.5–94.5%) for mesial surfaces, 94.8% (CI 94.7–94.8%) for distal surfaces and 95.4% (CI 95.4–95.5%) for occlusal surfaces.

Conclusions

Re-interventions after restorative treatment play a significant role in general practice settings. Surface-related survival rates of restorations reveal a need for improvement.

Clinical relevance

This study allows the estimation of the probability of re-interventions after restoring posterior tooth surfaces. It is based on several million cases from general practises under the terms and conditions of a national health insurance system.

Astvaldsdottir A, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranaeus S, Nilsson M (2015) Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults—a systematic review. J Dent 43(8):934–954. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001 CrossRefPubMed

Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, Gaengler P, Lindberg A, Huysmans MC, van Dijken JW (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93(10):943–949. doi:10.1177/0022034514544217 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ (1999) How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review. Br Dent J 187(8):432–439CrossRefPubMed

Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z (2014) Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD005620. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub2

Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, Dos Santos GO (2015) Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 43(9):1043–1050. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.06.005 CrossRefPubMed

Palotie U, Vehkalahti MM (2009) Finnish dentists’ perceptions of the longevity of direct dental restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 67(1):44–49. doi:10.1080/00016350802577792 CrossRefPubMed

Mjor IA, Moorhead JE (1998) Selection of restorative materials, reasons for replacement, and longevity of restorations in Florida. J Am Coll Dent 65(3):27–33PubMed

Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, DeRouen TA (2007) Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138(6):775–783CrossRefPubMed

Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28(2):111–116CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lundin SA, Rasmusson CG (2004) Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in class I and II restorations: 2-year results. Quintessence Int 35(9):758–762PubMed

11.

Pallesen U, van Dijken JW, Halken J, Hallonsten AL, Hoigaard R (2014) A prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth of children and adolescents in public dental health service: reasons for replacement. Clin Oral Investig 18(3):819–827. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-1052-x CrossRefPubMed

12.

Palotie U, Vehkalahti M (2002) Reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in posterior teeth of young Finnish adults. Acta Odontol Scand 60(6):325–329CrossRefPubMed

13.

Goldstein GR (2010) The longevity of direct and indirect posterior restorations is uncertain and may be affected by a number of dentist-, patient-, and material-related factors. J Evid Based Dent Pract 10(1):30–31. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.015 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89(10):1063–1067. doi:10.1177/0022034510376071 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Smales RJ, Gerke DC, White IL (1990) Clinical evaluation of occlusal glass ionomer, resin, and amalgam restorations. J Dent 18(5):243–249. doi:10.1016/0300-5712(90)90021-6 CrossRefPubMed

16.

van de Sande FH, Rodolpho PA, Basso GR, Patias R, da Rosa QF, Demarco FF, Opdam NJ, Cenci MS (2015) 18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base. Dent Mater 31(6):669–675. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.03.006 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS (2009) How long do direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales survive? Br Dent J 206(1):E2 . doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.1042discussion 26-27CrossRefPubMed

18.

Suni J, Vahanikkila H, Pakkila J, Tjaderhane L, Larmas M (2013) Review of 36,537 patient records for tooth health and longevity of dental restorations. Caries Res 47(4):309–317. doi:10.1159/000346691 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR (2002) Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent 27(5):488–492PubMed

20.

Raedel M, Hartmann A, Bohm S, Konstantinidis I, Priess HW, Walter MH (2015) Outcomes of direct pulp capping: interrogating an insurance database. Int Endod J. doi:10.1111/iej.12564 PubMed

21.

Raedel M, Hartmann A, Bohm S, Walter MH (2015) Three-year outcomes of root canal treatment: mining an insurance database. J Dent 43(4):412–417. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.013 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Raedel M, Hartmann A, Bohm S, Walter MH (2015) Three-year outcomes of apicoectomy: mining an insurance database. J Dent. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.016

23.

van Dijken JW (2013) A 6-year prospective evaluation of a one-step HEMA-free self-etching adhesive in class II restorations. Dent Mater 29(11):1116–1122. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2013.08.205 CrossRefPubMed

24.

van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2011) Four-year clinical evaluation of class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent 39(1):16–25. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.09.006 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS (2009) Ten-year outcome of crowns placed within the General Dental Services in England and Wales. J Dent 37(1):12–24. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.017 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS (2012) Ten year survival of bridges placed in the General Dental Services in England and Wales. J Dent 40(11):886–895. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.002 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lumley PJ, Lucarotti PS, Burke FJ (2008) Ten-year outcome of root fillings in the General Dental Services in England and Wales. Int Endod J 41(7):577–585. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01402.x CrossRefPubMed

28.

Raedel M, Fiedler C, Jacoby S, Boening KW (2015) Survival of teeth treated with cast post and cores: a retrospective analysis over an observation period of up to 19.5 years. J Prosthet Dent 114(1):40–45. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.08.017 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Rädel M, Hartmann A, Bohm S, Walter MH (2015) Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse, Band 31 BARMER GEK Zahnreport 2015 Schwerpunkt: Füllungen, 1st edn. Asgard Verlagsservice, Siegburg

30.

Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K (2014) Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: a 3-year study. Med Princ Pract 23(5):453–459. doi:10.1159/000364874 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Coelho-De-Souza FH, Camargo JC, Beskow T, Balestrin MD, Klein-Junior CA, Demarco FF (2012) A randomized double-blind clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 1-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci 20(2):174–179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK (2015) Direct restoration survival in England and Wales using massive data. In: 93th General Session of the International Association for Dental Research, Boston, Mass, USA, 11–15.03.2015

33.

Geurtsen W, Schoeler U (1997) A 4-year retrospective clinical study of class I and class II composite restorations. J Dent 25(3–4):229–232CrossRefPubMed

34.

Bjorndal L, Reit C (2004) The annual frequency of root fillings, tooth extractions and pulp-related procedures in Danish adults during 1977-2003. Int Endod J 37(11):782–788. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00879.x CrossRefPubMed

35.

Kanzow P, Wiegand A, Schwendicke F (2016) Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations. J Dent 54:41–47. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.008 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces—a massive data analysis
Authors: Michael Raedel
Andrea Hartmann
Steffen Bohm
Heinz-Werner Priess
Stefanie Samietz
Ioannis Konstantinidis
Michael H. Walter
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 9/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2084-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces—a massive data analysis

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2017

Oral health-related quality of life depending on oral health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation

Low-serum culture with novel medium promotes maxillary/mandibular bone marrow stromal cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation ability

In vivo study for tooth colour determination—visual versus digital

Presence of root canal treatment has no influence on periodontal bone loss

Asymmetric bone remodeling in mandibular and maxillary tori