Longevity of direct restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities: a retrospective study.

The aims of this retrospective clinical study were to compare the longevities of direct posterior amalgam restorations (AMs) and resin composite restorations (RCs) that were subjected to occlusal stresses and to investigate variables predictive of their outcome. A total of 269 AMs and RCs filled in Class I and II cavities of posterior teeth were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival estimator and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. Seventy-one retreated restorations were reviewed from dental records. The other 198 restorations still in use were evaluated according to modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by two investigators. The longevity of RCs was significantly lower than that of AMs (AM = 8.7 years and RC = 5.0 years, p<0.05), especially in molars. The prognostic variables, such as age, restorative material, tooth type, operator group, diagnosis, cavity classification, and gender, affected the longevity of the restorations (multivariate Cox regression analysis, p<0.05). However, among the restorations working in oral cavities, their clinical performance evaluated with modified USPHS criteria showed no statistical difference between both restoratives. In contrast to the short longevity of RCs relative to AMs, the clinical performance of RCs working in oral cavities was observed to be not different from that of AMs. This suggests that once a RC starts to fail, it happens in a rapid progression. As posterior esthetic restorations, RCs must be observed carefully with periodic follow-ups for early detection and timely repair of failures.

A retrospective clinical study of cervical restorations: longevity and failure-prognostic variables.

The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the longevity of cervical restorations between resin composite (RC) and glass ionomer (GI) and to investigate variables predictive of their outcome. The clinical performance of the two restorative materials in function was compared using the ratings of the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. A total of 479 cervical restorations were included in the study. Ninety-one already-replaced restorations were reviewed from dental records. The other 388 restorations still in function were evaluated according to the modified USPHS criteria by two investigators. Longevity and prognostic variables were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. The clinical performances of the two materials were evaluated according to the ratings of the USPHS criteria and compared using the Pearson chi-square test and Fisher exact test. The longevity was not significantly different between RC and GI (median survival time, 10.4 ± 0.7 and 11.5 ± 1.1 years, respectively). The main reasons for failure were loss of retention (82.2%) and secondary caries (17.8%). The longevity of cervical restoration was significantly influenced by tooth group and operator group (Wald test, p<0.05), while material, gender, presence or absence of systemic diseases, arch, and reason for treatment did not affect the longevity. Contrary to the longevity, the clinical performance of RC was superior to GI in the criteria of retention, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation, but similar in secondary caries, wear, and postoperative sensitivity.