Risk factors for failure of class V restorations of carious cervical lesions in general dental practices.
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
30031788
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this retrospective, non-interventional, multi-center, practice-based study was to analyze factors influencing the survival of restorative treatments of one- and two-surface active cervical (root) caries lesions (CCLs).
METHODS
Records from patients who visited five private practices regularly were searched for the presence of active one- and two-surface CCLs. Data from 1167 patients with 2070 CCLs being detected at least 6 months before the last recall visit were recorded. Kaplan-Meier-analyses were used to analyze time-to-failure. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between clinical factors and time until failure.
RESULTS
Within 120 months [mean (SD) follow-up period:50 (40) months] 219 failures could be observed. Median survival time was 120 months. The AFR was 1.82% for one-surface restorations (CCL1) and 3.25% for two-surface restorations (CCL2). In multivariate Cox regression two-surface cervical restorations showed 1.75 times higher failure rates than one-surface cervical restoration. Furthermore, CCL being checked up more than twice a year showed significantly higher failure rates than restorations being checked up less than twice a year (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Low failure rates could be found for restorative treatment strategies of one- as well as for two-surface CCLs.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Restorative treatment of CCLs is a viable way to manage one-surface CCLs. However, the proximal extension of the CCL significantly shortens the longevity of the restoration. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012510).
The aim of this retrospective, non-interventional, multi-center, practice-based study was to analyze factors influencing the survival of restorative treatments of one- and two-surface active cervical (root) caries lesions (CCLs).
METHODS
Records from patients who visited five private practices regularly were searched for the presence of active one- and two-surface CCLs. Data from 1167 patients with 2070 CCLs being detected at least 6 months before the last recall visit were recorded. Kaplan-Meier-analyses were used to analyze time-to-failure. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between clinical factors and time until failure.
RESULTS
Within 120 months [mean (SD) follow-up period:50 (40) months] 219 failures could be observed. Median survival time was 120 months. The AFR was 1.82% for one-surface restorations (CCL1) and 3.25% for two-surface restorations (CCL2). In multivariate Cox regression two-surface cervical restorations showed 1.75 times higher failure rates than one-surface cervical restoration. Furthermore, CCL being checked up more than twice a year showed significantly higher failure rates than restorations being checked up less than twice a year (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Low failure rates could be found for restorative treatment strategies of one- as well as for two-surface CCLs.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Restorative treatment of CCLs is a viable way to manage one-surface CCLs. However, the proximal extension of the CCL significantly shortens the longevity of the restoration. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012510).
Date Issued
2018-10
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
Subjects
Clinical study Geriatric dentistry Preventive dentistry Restorative dentistry Risk factor Root caries
Language(s)
en
Author(s)
Journal
Journal of dentistry
Publisher
Elsevier Science
ISSN
0300-5712
Access(Rights)
restricted