Is composite repair suitable for anterior restorations? A long-term practice-based clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the impact in survival, when repair is seen as failure or not, in anterior composite restorations with a retrospective 15-year follow-up study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected from patients' files of a private dental practice, including patients with direct composite restorations placed in anterior teeth (class III, class IV, or veneer) between January 1994 and December 2009. Data were analyzed considering or not repair as failure. Statistical analysis was performed with log rank test, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression (p < .05). RESULTS: One hundred forty-four patients' files were included, with 634 restorations. At 15 years, Class III / IV restorations showed 69% survival and 2.4% annual failure rate (AFR) when repair was not considered as failure, and 64% and 2.9% AFR, respectively, when repair was seen as failure. For direct veneers, at 5 and 10 years of follow-up, survival dropped from 85% to 74% and from 52% to 38% respectively, when repair was considered as failure. In general, restorations placed in the upper jaw showed increased risk for failure compared to the lower jaw (p < .01), and restorations in central incisors presented a higher risk for failure compared to canines (p < .01). CONCLUSION: Composite repair seems a suitable alternative for class III, class IV, and veneer restorations since it was able to increase the survival of restorations performed in anterior teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Composite repair for anterior restorations is a suitable restorative treatment option and presents benefits over replacement, including the preservation of sound tooth structures, reduced clinical chair time, and patient anxiety.

18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base.

OBJECTIVE: Advantages and disadvantages of using intermediate layers underneath resin-composite restorations have been presented under different perspectives. Yet, few long-term clinical studies evaluated the effect of glass-ionomer bases on restoration survival. The present study investigated the influence of glass-ionomer-cement base in survival of posterior composite restorations, compared to restorations without base. METHODS: Original datasets of one dental practice were used to retrieve data retrospectively. The presence or absence of an intermediate layer of glass-ionomer-cement was the main factor under analysis, considering survival, annual failure rate and types of failure as outcomes. Other investigated factors were: patient gender, jaw, tooth, number of restored surfaces and composite. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox-regression. RESULTS: In total 632 restorations in 97 patients were investigated. Annual failure rates percentages up to 18-years were 1.9% and 2.1% for restorations with and without base, respectively. In restorations with glass-ionomer-cement base, fracture was the predominant reason for failure, corresponding to 57.8% of total failures. Failure type distribution was different (p=0.007) comparing restorations with and without base, but no effect in the overall survival of restorations was found (p=0.313). SIGNIFICANCE: The presence of a glass-ionomer-cement base did not affect the survival of resin-composite restorations in the investigated sample. Acceptable annual failure rates after 18-years can be achieved with both techniques, leading to the perspective that an intermediate layer, placed during an interim treatment, may be maintained without clinical detriment, but no improvement in survival should be expected based on such measure.

22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective longitudinal study investigated the longevity of posterior restorations placed in a single general practice using 2 different composites in filler characteristics and material properties: P-50 APC (3M ESPE) with 70vol.% inorganic filler loading (midfilled) and Herculite XR (Kerr) with 55vol.% filler loading (minifilled). METHODS: Patient records were used for collecting data. Patients with at least 2 posterior composite restorations placed between 1986 and 1990, and still in the practice for regular check-up visits, were selected. 61 patients (20 male, 41 female, age 31.2-65.1) presenting 362 restorations (121 Class I, 241 Class II) placed using a closed sandwich technique were evaluated by 2 operators using the FDI criteria. Data were analyzed with Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier statistics, and Cox regression analysis (p<0.05). RESULTS: 110 failures were detected. Similar survival rates for both composites were observed considering the full period of observation; better performance for the midfilled was detected considering the last 12 years. There was higher probability of failure in molars and for multi-surface restorations. SIGNIFICANCE: Both evaluated composites showed good clinical performance over 22 years with 1.5% (midfilled) and 2.2% (minifilled) annual failure rate. Superior longevity for the higher filler loaded composite (midfilled) was observed in the second part of the observation period with constant annual failure rate between 10 years and 20 years, whereas the minifilled material showed an increase in annual failure rate between 10 years and 20 years, suggesting that physical properties of the composite may have some impact on restoration longevity.