Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 30;28(10):558.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05965-z.

Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study

Jukka Leinonen  1 , Hannu Vähänikkilä  2 , Remo Luksepp  3 , Vuokko Anttonen  3
Affiliations

Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study

Jukka Leinonen et al. Clin Oral Investig. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the survival of class II composite restorations in premolars and molars with and without base bulk-fill composite in general dental practice.

Materials and methods: We collected data from the electronic patient files of the Public Dental Services in the City of Oulu, Finland. The timespan of data collection was from August 15th, 2002, to August 9th, 2018. The data consisted of class II composite restorations both with and without base bulk-fill composite. We compared the survival of these restorations using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the log-rank test, survival rates, and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Results: We observed 297 restorations in 96 patients. The five-year survival rates for restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite were comparable in premolars (77.5% and 77.4%, respectively) but different in molars (69.9% and 57.8%, respectively, p = 0.069). In molars, the restorations with base bulk-fill composite exhibited a higher survival rate in 14 patients, whereas in 11 patients the restorations without base bulk-fill composites exhibited a higher survival rate. In 24 patients the survival rates were similar for restorations with and without the base bulk-fill composite (p = 0.246).

Conclusions: The restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite had similar longevity.

Clinical relevance: Base bulk-fill composites are safe to use in general practice due to their similar survival rates compared to conventional composites.

Keywords: Clinical; Dental restoration; Direct restoration; General practice; Longevity; Resin-based composite.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Kaplan–Meier survival curves for molar composite restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite (n = 186, p = 0.069)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier survival curves for composite restorations in premolars and molars (n = 297, p = 0.019)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Staxrud F, Tveit AB, Rukke HV, Kopperud SE (2016) Repair of defective composite restorations. A questionnaire study among dentists in the Public Dental Service in Norway. J Dent 52:50–54. 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.004 - PubMed
    1. Birch S, Price R, Andreou P, Jones G, Portolesi A (2016) Variations in survival time for amalgam and resin composite restorations: a population based cohort analysis. Community Dent Health 33:208–212. 10.1922/CDH_3825Birch05 - PubMed
    1. Eltahlah D, Lynch CD, Chadwick BL, Blum IR, Wilson NHF (2018) An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. J Dent 72:1–7. 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.03.001 - PubMed
    1. Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK (2018) The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 4: resin composite restorations: time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth. Br Dent J 224:945–956. 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00024-9 - PubMed
    1. Tobi H, Kreulen CM, Vondeling H, van Amerongen WE (1999) Cost-effectiveness of composite resins and amalgam in the replacement of amalgam Class II restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27:137–143. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02003.x - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources