Opdam, Niek2; van de Sande, Francoise3; Bronkhorst, Ewald4; Bottenberg, Peter10; Cenci, Maximiliano3; Gaengler, Peter6; Pallesen, Ulla11; Lindberg, Anders8; Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte2; van Dijken, Jan WV9
1 Section 05 - Community Dentistry, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet2 Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre3 Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil4 Radboud University Nimegen Medical Centre5 Vrije Universiteit Brussel6 Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, D-51109 Cologne, Germany7 Section 02 - Paediatric Dentistry, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet8 University of Umea9 Universitetet i Umeå10 Vrije Universiteit Brussel11 Section 02 - Paediatric Dentistry, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet
The aim of this meta-analysis, based on individual participant data of several studies, was to investigate the influence of patient, materials and tooth related variables on the survival of posterior resin composite restorations. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines a search was conducted resulting in 12 longitudinal studies of direct posterior resin composite restorations with at least 5 years follow-up. Original datasets were still available, including placement/failure/censoring of restorations, restored surfaces, materials used, reasons for clinical failure, and caries-risk status. A database including all restorations was constructed and a Multivariate Cox’s regression method was used to analyze variables of interest [patient (age; gender; caries-risk-status), jaw (upper; lower), number of restored surfaces, resin composite and adhesive materials and use of glass-ionomer cement as base/liner (present or absent)] The Hazard Ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals were determined and annual failure rates were calculated for subgroups. Results: 2816 restorations (2585 Class II and 231 class I restorations) were included in the analysis, of which 569 failed during the observation period. Main reasons for failure were caries and fracture. The regression analyses showed a significantly higher risk of failure for restorations in high caries risk individuals and with a higher number of restored surfaces.
Journal of Dental Research, 2014, Vol 93, Issue 10, p. 943-49
The Faculty of Health Science; Composite materials, Restorative materials, Risk factor(s), Operative