Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-04-2014 | Original Article

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

Authors: Ulla Pallesen, Jan W. V. van Dijken, Jette Halken, Anna-Lena Hallonsten, Ruth Höigaard

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 3/2014

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the study was to investigate reasons for replacement and repair of posterior resin composite (RC) restorations placed in permanent teeth of children and adolescents attending Public Dental Health Service in Denmark.

Material and method

All posterior RC placed consecutively by 115 dentists over a period of 4 years were evaluated at baseline and up to 8 years later. The endpoint of each restoration was defined when repair or replacement was performed. The influence of patient, dentist and material factors on reasons for repair or replacement was investigated.

Results

A total of 4,355 restorations were placed. Replacements comprised 406 and repairs 125 restorations. The cumulative survival rate at 8 years was 84 %. Failed restorations were most frequently seen due to secondary caries (57 %), post-operative sensitivity (POS) (10 %) and RC fracture (6 %). POS was observed in 1.5 % of the evaluations and reported more often in girls and from teeth restored with a base material. Older dentists showed lower proportion of replaced restorations due to secondary caries than younger dentists.

Conclusion

Posterior RC restorations in children and adolescents performed in general practice showed a good durability with annual failure rates of 2 %. The main reason for failure was secondary caries followed by post-operative sensitivity and resin composite fracture. A high proportion of replaced/repaired RC restorations were caused by primary caries in a non-filled surface.

Clinical relevance

Secondary caries was the main reason for failure of RC in children and young adults. More teeth with post-operative sensitivity and a shorter longevity of restorations were observed when a base material was used.

Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, van Dijken JWV, Funegårdh U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M (2009) Selection of Dent Mat and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden. J Dent 37:673–678PubMedCrossRef

Gordan VV, Garvan CW, Riley JL, Worley DC, Gilbert GH, for the DPBRN Collaborative group (2009) How dentists diagnose defective restorations: evidence from the dental practice-based research network. Oper Dent 34:664–673PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Clarkson JE, Worthington HV, Davies RM (2000) Restorative treatment provided over five years for adults regularly attending general dental practice. J Dent 28:233–239PubMedCrossRef

ADA Council on Scientific Affairs (1998) ADA Council on Dental Benefit programs, statement on posterior resin-based composites. JADA 129:1627–1628

Burke FJT (2004) Amalgam to tooth-coloured materials—implications for clinical practice and dental education: governmental restrictions and amalgam-usage survey results. J Dent 32:343–345PubMedCrossRef

Mjör IA (2005) Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. JADA 136:1426–1433PubMed

Mjör IA (2005) Reasons for replacement of restorations. Oper Dent 30:409–416

Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA (2007) A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mat 23:2–8CrossRef

Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjör IA (1990) Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odont Scand 48:3105–3116

10.

Mjör IA (1997) The reasons of replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odont Scand 55:58–63PubMedCrossRef

11.

Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S (2002) Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 27:117–123PubMed

12.

Burke FJT, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NHF (1999) Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quint Int 30:234–242

13.

Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA (2007) Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adh Dent 9:469–475

14.

Burke FJT, Wilson NHF, Cheung SW, Mjör IA (2001) Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent 29:317–324PubMedCrossRef

15.

Forss H, Widström E (2004) Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odont Scand 62:82–86PubMedCrossRef

16.

van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2011) Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dent Mat 27:150–156CrossRef

17.

van Dijken JWV, 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 39:16–25PubMedCrossRef

18.

van Dijken JWV, Lindberg A (2009) Clinical effectiveness of a low shrinkage resin composite. A five-year study. J Adh Dent 11:143–148

19.

Forss H, Widström E (2003) The post-amalgam era. A selection of materials and their longevity in the primary and young permanent dentitions. Int J Ped Dent 13:158–164CrossRef

20.

Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C (2007) The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth. Findings from the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. JADA 138:763–772PubMed

21.

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

22.

Kopperud SE, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid L (2012) Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur J Oral Sci 120:539–548PubMedCrossRef

23.

Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV (2013) Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service. A prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent 4:297–306CrossRef

24.

Qvist V, Strøm C (1993) 11-year assessment of class-III resin restorations completed with two restorative procedures. Acta Odont Scand 51:253–262PubMedCrossRef

25.

Palotie U, Vehkalahti MM (2009) Finnish dentists' perceptions of the longevity of direct dental restorations. Acta Odont Scand 67:44–49PubMedCrossRef

26.

Palotie U, Vehkalahti MM (2012) Reasons for replacement of restorations: dentists' perceptions. Acta Odont Scand 70:478–484CrossRef

27.

Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE (2000) Reasons of replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 50:360–366CrossRef

28.

van Dijken JWV, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K (2006) Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in class II cavities. J Dent 34:763–769PubMedCrossRef

29.

Lindberg A, van Dijken JWV, Lindberg M (2006) Nine-year evaluation of a poly-acid-modified resin composite open sandwich technique in class II cavities. J Dent 35:124–129PubMedCrossRef

30.

Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F (2009) A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: five-year results. J Dent 37:198–203PubMedCrossRef

31.

Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Curgan S (2009) Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations. Oper Dent 34:11–17PubMedCrossRef

32.

Van Nieuwenhuysen J-P, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003) Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31:395–405PubMedCrossRef

33.

Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508PubMed

34.

Opdam NJ, Loomans BA, Roeters JM, Bronckhorst EM (2004) Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students. J Dent 32:379–383PubMedCrossRef

35.

van Dijken JWV, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K (2005) A four-year clinical evaluation of a highly filled hybrid resin composite in class II cavities. J Adh Dent 7:343–349

36.

Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2005) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. JADA 136:1535–1540

37.

Wilson NH, Gordon VV, Brunton PA, Wilson MA, Crisp RJ, Mjör IA (2006) Two-centre evaluation of a resin composite/self-etching restorative system: three-year findings. J Adh Dent 8:47–51

38.

Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP, Busato AL (2006) 3-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations. J Oral Reh 33:144–151CrossRef

39.

40.

van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2013) A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in class II restorations. Dent Mat 29:191–198CrossRef

41.

van Dijken JWV, Hörstedt P (1987) Effect of use of rubberdam versus cotton rolls on marginal adaptation of composite resin fillings to acid-etched enamel. Acta Odont Scand 45:303–308PubMedCrossRef

42.

Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ (1999) How long do routine dental restorations last? A systemic review. Brit Dent J 187:432–429PubMedCrossRef

43.

van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2010) Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid modified resin composite and resin modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations. An up to 14 years follow-up. Clin Oral Inv 14:217–222CrossRef

44.

Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans M-C DNJM, Wilson NHF (2011) Age of failed restorations: a deceptive longevity parameter. J Dent 39:225–230PubMedCrossRef

45.

van Dijken JWV (2010) Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities. A 12-year follow-up. J Dent 38:469–474PubMedCrossRef

46.

Stangel I, Barolet RY (1990) Clinical evaluation of two posterior composite resins: two-year results. J Oral Rehab 17:257–268CrossRef

47.

Wilson NH, Norman RD (1991) Five year findings of a multiclinical trial for a posterior composite. J Dent 19:153–159PubMedCrossRef

48.

Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, Holston AM, Gingell JC (1991) A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quint Int 22:143–151

49.

Shimuzu T, Kitano T, Inoue M, Narikawa K, Fujii B (1995) Ten year longitudinal clinical evaluation of a visible light cured posterior composite resin. Dent Mat J 14:120–134CrossRef

50.

Hayashi M, Wilson NHF (2003) Failure risk of posterior composites with post-operative sensitivity. Oper Dent 28:681–688PubMed

51.

Perdigão J, Geraldeli S, Hodges J (2003) Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive. Effect on postoperative sensitivity. JADA 134:1621–1629PubMed

52.

van Dijken JWV (2002) Three-year performance of a calcium-, fluoride- and hydroxyl ions releasing resin composite. Acta Odont Scand 60:155–159PubMedCrossRef

Title: 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
Authors: Ulla Pallesen
Jan W. V. van Dijken
Jette Halken
Anna-Lena Hallonsten
Ruth Höigaard
Publication date: 01-04-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1052-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objectives

Material and method

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Material and method

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

An early oral health care program starting during pregnancy—a long-term study—phase V

LED and laser photobiomodulation in the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis: experimental study in hamsters

Bisphosphonates’ antiangiogenic potency in the development of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws: influence on microvessel sprouting in an in vivo 3D Matrigel assay

Lactobacillus paracasei SD1, a novel probiotic, reduces mutans streptococci in human volunteers: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

In vitro evaluation of the erosive potential of viscosity-modified soft acidic drinks on enamel

Fracture toughness and hardness of a Y-TZP dental ceramic after mechanical surface treatments