Restoration Survival: Revisiting Patients' Risk Factors Through a Systematic Literature Review

Sande, Françoise Hélène van de; Collares, Kauê; Corrêa, Marcos Britto; Cenci, Maximiliano Sérgio; Demarco, Flávio Fernando; Opdam, N.J.M.

doi:10.2341/15-120-lit

Cited by 67 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(212 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the current restorative composites seem not to be the problem anymore 5 , more recent literature indicates that other factors have a predominant effect on the clinical performance of composite restorations. 12 These may include factors related to the patient (age, caries and occlusal stress risk, socioeconomic status) and the professional (age, gender, clinical experience). Establishing risk factors and indicating their main reasons might facilitate dentists' restorative treatment decisions, and consequently increase restorative longevity and reduce costs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Composites resins have become the first choice for direct anterior and posterior restorations. The great popularity is related to their esthetic appearance and reduced need of sound tissue removal as compared with former treatments. Several studies have demonstrated that composite restorations may last long in clinical service. In this review we discuss the factors playing a role on the long-term longevity. Composite restorations have demonstrated a good clinical performance with annual failure rates varying from 1% to 3% in posterior teeth and 1% to 5% in anterior teeth. Factors related to the patients such as caries risk and occlusal stress risk, in addition to socioeconomic factors, may affect the survival significantly. Characteristics of the clinical operators, particularly their decision making when it comes to observing or approaching an existing restoration, are decisive for longevity. Cavity features such as the number of restored walls, composite volume, and presence of endodontic treatment are of major importance and may dictate the service time of the restorative approach. The choice of restorative composite seems to have a minor effect on longevity provided that appropriate technical procedures are used. The main reasons for failure in posterior teeth are secondary caries and fracture (restoration or tooth/restoration), while in anterior teeth esthetic concerns are the main reasons leading to restoration failures. Composite resin restorations can be considered a reliable treatment as long as both the professional and the patient are aware of the factors involved in restoration failures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Currently, several therapeutic approaches have been applied to reduce the frequency and/or intensity of SB. [1][2][3] Currently, several therapeutic approaches have been applied to reduce the frequency and/or intensity of SB.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of masticatory muscle activity with sleep arousal and other concomitant movements during sleep

Miki

Minakuchi

Miyagi

et al. 2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aims to verify the associations among sleep bruxism (SB), sleep arousal (SA) and concurrent body movements. Material and Methods:Subjects underwent a standard overnight polysomnography test and audio-video recordings. Sleep quality was evaluated according to the Rechtschaffen and Kales criteria, while SA was determined as per the American Sleep Disorders Association criteria. Analyses were performed by an external institution after masking of the subjects' information. SB was assessed based on the presence/ absence of rhythmic masticatory muscle activity (RMMA) episodes, which were identified by using electromyography of the masseter muscle. The observed simultaneous movements included lower leg movement (LLM), swallowing, face scratching, head movement, body movement, eye blinking, coughing, licking, sighing, body scratching, lip sucking, somniloquy and yawning. The LLM was determined visually, as well as through an increase in the tibialis electromyogram signal. Other movements were visually assessed using audio-video recordings. The incidences of all the simultaneous movements were compared between RMMA with intercurrent SA (SAwRMMA; RMMA episode derived from a masseter electromyogram showing more than 10% of maximum voluntary contraction) and SA without RMMA (SAw/oRMMA).Results: Fourteen subjects were included in this study (females/males: 4/10, mean age: 31.5 ± 5.7 years). Among these, LLM, swallowing, body movement, licking, body scratching and lip sucking were frequently observed in SAwRMMA episodes than in SAw/oRMMA episodes, significantly. However, the non-specific simultaneous movements were higher observed in SAw/oRMMA episodes than that in SAwRMMA. Conclusion:Our results suggest that SB is concurrently activated with LLM in relation to arousal. K E Y W O R D Sconcomitant movement, non-specific simultaneous movements, polysomnography assessment, rhythmic masticatory muscle activity, sleep arousal, sleep bruxism

show abstract

“…Studies have already shown that "older" children Metz et al, 2015], with severe decay [Bücher et al, 2014], from low income [Demarco et al, 2012;Correa et al, 2013;van de Sande et al, 2013van de Sande et al, , 2016Metz et al, 2015] had significantly lower survival probabilities in their restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, it was recommended that the assessment of patient factors, such as socioeconomic status, caries risk/ activity/severity, and oral hygiene (among others), should become part of clinical studies investigating restoration survival, since several of these factors were shown to influence the failure of restorations [van de Sande et al, 2016]. A recent retrospective study comparing "complete" and "selective" caries removal in young permanent molars demonstrated that, regardless of caries removal technique, the restorations showed a restricted survival in patients with high caries activity and gingivitis [Casagrande et al, 2016].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival and Associated Risk Factors of Selective Caries Removal Treatments in Primary Teeth: A Retrospective Study in a High Caries Risk Population

Melgar

Opdam²,

Corrêa³

et al. 2017

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the survival probability of selective caries removal (SCR) treatments in the primary teeth of children with high caries experience and factors potentially associated with treatment failure. Methods: The sample included SCR treatments conducted in anterior and posterior teeth without sedation or general anesthesia among children attending a university dental service. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate the longevity of restorations and multivariate Cox regression with shared frailty was used to assess risk factors. Results: A total of 284 SCR treatments in 88 children (aged 5.2 ± 1.91 years) with high caries experience (mean dmft/DMFT = 11.1 ± 5.04) were analyzed. The 3-year survival reached 48.8%, with an annual failure rate of 21.2%. Restorative failures (n = 60) were found more frequently compared to pulp complications (n = 12). SCR performed in anterior primary teeth were more prone to failure (hazard ratio = 3.6, 95% CI: 1.94; 6.71). Patients with a higher amount of visible plaque experienced more failures in SCR treatments (hazard ratio 3.0, 95% CI:1.27; 7.07). Conclusions: In this retrospective study, SCR showed restricted survival when compared to other prospective clinical trials. Patient-related factors, especially the young age and high caries experience of the children, may represent a challenge for restoration survival. Regardless of the caries removal technique or restorative material, cariogenic biofilm has a negative effect on the survival of restorations, probably by acting directly on material deterioration and, particularly, on the development of new caries lesions of rapid progression.

show abstract

Restoration Survival: Revisiting Patients' Risk Factors Through a Systematic Literature Review

Cited by 67 publications

References 91 publications

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

Association of masticatory muscle activity with sleep arousal and other concomitant movements during sleep

Survival and Associated Risk Factors of Selective Caries Removal Treatments in Primary Teeth: A Retrospective Study in a High Caries Risk Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About