Longevity of posterior composite and compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study
- PMID: 31053896
- DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02911-2
Longevity of posterior composite and compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study
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.
Keywords: Class II; Compomer; Longevity; Primary molars; Resin-based composite; Survival.
Similar articles
-
The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jun;138(6):763-72. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0264. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007. PMID: 17545265 Clinical Trial.
-
Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations.J Prosthet Dent. 1999 May;81(5):610-5. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70217-9. J Prosthet Dent. 1999. PMID: 10220667 Clinical Trial.
-
Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer.Eur J Oral Sci. 2004 Apr;112(2):188-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00117.x. Eur J Oral Sci. 2004. PMID: 15056118 Clinical Trial.
-
Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth.Am J Dent. 2005 Jun;18(3):198-211. Am J Dent. 2005. PMID: 16158813 Review.
-
Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan;28(1):e195-e203. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12630. Epub 2017 May 17. J Prosthodont. 2019. PMID: 28513897 Review.
Cited by
-
Alternative Direct Restorative Materials for Dental Amalgam: A Concise Review Based on an FDI Policy Statement.Int Dent J. 2024 Aug;74(4):661-668. doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.11.004. Epub 2023 Dec 9. Int Dent J. 2024. PMID: 38071154 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Retrospective Cohort Study on Potential Risk Factors for Repeated Need of Dental Rehabilitation under General Anesthesia in a Private Pediatric Dental Practice.Children (Basel). 2022 Jun 8;9(6):855. doi: 10.3390/children9060855. Children (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35740792 Free PMC article.
-
The light-curing unit: An essential piece of dental equipment.Int Dent J. 2020 Dec;70(6):407-417. doi: 10.1111/idj.12582. Epub 2020 Jul 21. Int Dent J. 2020. PMID: 32696512 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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 - DOI
-
- Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Jugendzahnpflege e.V. (2016) Epidemiologische Begleituntersuchungen zur Gruppenprophylaxe. https://www.daj.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF_Downloads/Epi_2016/Epi_fina... . Accessed 11 Dec 2018
-
- Featherstone JD (2000) The science and practice of caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 131(7):887–899 - DOI
-
- 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):221–232 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical