Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission Pro... - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

134Table 3Clinical studies reporting a relationship between restoration performance and gender and age.Reference Restorations/ Restoration types Obs. period General performancepatients (application) (years)LongitudinalPyk and Mejare, 1999 158 242/142 Glass cermet (tunnel) 3.5 Success rate was not related to patient agePlasmans et al., 1998 145 300/ Amalgam (complex) 8.5 Restorations more prone to failure in patients >30yrs old than in younger onesPrati et al., 1998 161 116/ Class III/V polyacid – 3 No association between USPHS criteria andmodified compositepatient age and genderPhantumvanit et al., 1996 148 446/282 Glass-ionomer (ART) 3 No differences between ART restorations inchildren and adultsGruythuysen et al., 1996 108 1213/ Class I and II amalgam 15 20% of the study restorations were replaced inmales, 16% in femalesJokstad, 1992 29 468/ Class II amalgam 10 Survival associated with patient age, but sampleincluded caries-susceptible childrenSmales and Gerke, 1992 166 700/ Class III and V composite 4 Significantly more failures occurred among theelderly patientsRetrospectiveHawthorne and Smales, /100 Amalgam and composite 1–40 Lowest survival rates in the 0–20 and 61+ year1997 150 age groupsPelka et al., 1996 162 520/56 Cast 1–40 No association between patient age and outcomesof quality and survivalMahmood and Smales, /1588 All types 1–15 Restoration survival was superior in female1994 152 patientsDunne and Millar, 1993 141 315/ Porcelain (veneer) 5 Patient age and gender could not be associatedwith failureBentley and Drake, 1986 168 1207/70 All types 1–20 Survival less favourable for patients >60 yrs oldcompared to the younger patients. No differencesbetween males and femalesCross-sectionalMjör et al., 2000 36 6761/ Amalgam and composite 1–30 Minor differences noted in longevity betweenmale and female patientsGlantz et al., 1993 180 /77 Fixed prosthesis 1–15 No differences regarding fracture, loss ofretention and/or dental caries between agesubgroupsDawson and Smales, 1992 181 1918/100 Amalgam and composite 1–16 Survival lower in the oldest of three age groups.A small gender difference also notedSmales, 1991 153 950/ Anterior composite 1–16 Median survival 7 yrs in age group 60 yrs, 12 yrs in group 21–60 yrs. More failuresseen in the oldest groupSmales, 1991 154 1476/ Amalgam 10 Patient age had a significant association for oneof five alloysKerschbaum et al., 1991 179 /1841 Fixed prosthesis 1–15 A lower survival of fixed prostheses wasassociated with higher age group (especially ifthe patient was older than 70 yrs)Kroeze et al., 1990 182 /600 All types ns The prevalence of unsatisfactory restorationstended to be higher with increasing agegated and no differences wereobserved.International Dental Journal (2001) Vol. 51/No.3Patient factorsCollins et al. 175 concluded, after aneight-year longitudinal study ofposterior composite resin restorations,that there was evidence toconfirm the importance of theinfluence of the patient, since manyof the observed failures occurredamong few patients. However, nodetails were reported that characterisedthese patients.The findings related to anassociation between restorationperformance and patient factors aresummarised in Tables 2 and 3.The majority of the studiesdescribe a minor difference. However,as for many of the otheralleged associations to clinical factorsone must be aware of publicationbias. Moreover, most clinical studieswere designed to address specificclinical problems. Issues such asinfluence of operator, patient factorsand intraoral location were usuallycarried out as secondary analyses.It is impossible to know if no suchrelationships are reported becauseno secondary analyses have beencarried out, or if the relationshipswere negative and thus omitted inthe text (Figures 4).Oral environmentReduced salivation and xerostomiaare associated with older patients,side effects of drug therapy andcancer treatment. Consequently,
135abcdeFigure 4 (a–e). Old composite resin restorations remaining in situ due to patient satisfaction. Other patients, as well as clinicians, might wellconsider the restorations ‘unacceptable’.caries risk increases significantly.Wood et al. 183 studied 54 pairs ofClass V amalgam and glassionomercement restorations overtwo years in 36 xerostomic cancerpatients. Survival times were veryshort (8.5 months) for all restorations.Among the individuals usingfluoride, 8 per cent of the glassionomercement and 100 per centof the amalgam restorationssurvived after six months. For thesubgroup of eight non-fluorideusers survivals were approximately100 per cent and 24 per cent. Thus,the degree of fluoride use wasassociated with the rate of restorationfailure.Caries activity might be expectedto affect the performance ofrestorations; however, there are fewdata on this aspect. In a longitudinalstudy of 242 tunnel restorationsin 142 individuals, the cumulativeproportion of successful restorationswas 81 per cent after twoyears and 64 per cent after 3.5 years.FDI Commission, Jokstad et al.: Quality of dental restorations
Page 7 and 8: 123that continues over time in an i
Page 12 and 13: 128cement, composite resin/resinmod
Page 14: 130marginal degradation compared to
Page 17: 133IsolationThe debate about the ne
Page 21 and 22: 137before being replaced, often for
Page 23 and 24: 1391,010 endodontically treated tee
Page 25 and 26: 141abcdeFigure 5 (a-e). ‘Quality
Page 27 and 28: 143most prevalent in fillings with
Page 29 and 30: 145Staining around both amalgam 267
Page 31 and 32: 147of approximal contact 289 . Desp
Page 33 and 34: 149Table 5 Relationship between the
Page 35 and 36: 151dures, including dietary advice,
Page 37 and 38: 153tions. Quintessence Int 1992 23:
Page 39 and 40: 155167. Fritz U, Fischbach H, Harke
Page 41 and 42: 157149.252. Klausner L H, Charbenea

Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission Pro... - ResearchGate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?