Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures
Luiz Alexandre Chisini
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorKauê Collares
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorMariana Gonzalez Cademartori
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorLuísa Jardim Corrêa de Oliveira
School of Dentistry, Catholic University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorMarcus Cristian Muniz Conde
Department of Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Univates, Lajeado, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorFlávio Fernando Demarco
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Marcos Britto Corrêa
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Correspondence to:
Marcos Britto Corrêa, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457, Gonçalves Chaves St. 5th floor, Pelotas 96015-560, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorLuiz Alexandre Chisini
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorKauê Collares
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorMariana Gonzalez Cademartori
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorLuísa Jardim Corrêa de Oliveira
School of Dentistry, Catholic University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorMarcus Cristian Muniz Conde
Department of Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Univates, Lajeado, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorFlávio Fernando Demarco
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Marcos Britto Corrêa
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Correspondence to:
Marcos Britto Corrêa, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457, Gonçalves Chaves St. 5th floor, Pelotas 96015-560, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Background
Several restorative materials with specific indications are used for filling cavities in primary teeth.
Aim
To systematically review the literature in order to investigate the longevity of primary teeth restorations and the reasons for failure.
Design
Electronic databases were screened, and eligible studies were hand-searched to find longitudinal clinical studies evaluating the survival of restorations (class I, class II, and crown) placed with different materials in primary teeth with at least one year of follow-up.
Results
Thirty-one studies were included, and a high bias risk was observed. Overall, 12,047 restorations were evaluated with 12.5% of failure rate. A high variation on annual failure rate (AFR) was detected (0–29.9%). Composite resin showed the lowest AFRs (1.7–12.9%). Stainless steel crowns (SSC) had the highest success rate (96.1%). Class I restorations and restorations placed using rubber dam presented better AFR. The main reason for failure observed was secondary caries (36.5%).
Conclusions
An elevated number of failures were observed due to recurrent caries, highlighting the need for professionals to work with a health-promoting approach. The high variation on failure rate among the materials can be due to children's behavior during the procedure, which demands short dental appointments and a controlled environment.
Conflict of interest
The rest of the authors declare no conflict of interests.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| ipd12346-sup-0001-AppendixS1.docxWord document, 12.8 KB | Appendix S1. Structured search strategy carried out in MEDLINE/PubMed database. |
| ipd12346-sup-0002-AppendixS2.docxWord document, 59.9 KB | Appendix S2. Excluded studies and reasons for exclusion. |
| ipd12346-sup-0003-AppendixS3.jpgimage/jpg, 901.1 KB | Appendix S3. Bias risk of the included studies. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- 1Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res 2015; 94: 650–658.
- 2Franzon R, Opdam NJ, Guimarães LF et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of the 24-months survival of composite resin restorations after one-step incomplete and complete excavation on primary teeth. J Dent 2015; 43: 1235–1241.
- 3Hubel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003; 13: 2–8.
- 4Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas AP, Papagiannoulis L. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Pediatr Dent 2004; 26: 245–250.
- 5Pinto GDS, Oliveira LJC, Romano AR et al. Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: results from a paediatric dental clinic. J Dent 2014; 42: 1248–1254.
- 6Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JW, Stenberg R. Effect of cavity form on the durability of glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth: a three-year clinical evaluation. ASDC J Dent Child 1995; 62: 197–200.
- 7Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Monting JS. Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 148–152.
- 8Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia K. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study. Pediatr Dent 1999; 21: 231–234.
- 9Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87–101.
- 10van de Sande FH, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Opdam N. Restoration survival: revisiting patients’ risk factors through a systematic literature review. Oper Dent 2016; 41: S7–S26.
- 11Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 763–772.
- 12Laske M, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Braspenning JC, Huysmans MC. Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice based research network. J Dent 2016; 46: 12–17.
10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.002 Google Scholar
- 13van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Rodolpho PA, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Cenci MS. Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res 2013; 92: 78S–83S.
- 14Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 943–949.
- 15Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM et al. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent 2014; 26: 351–355.
- 16Kopperud SE, Tveit AB, Opdam NJ, Espelid I. Occlusal caries management: preferences among dentists in Norway. Caries Res 2016; 50: 40–47.
- 17Dutta BN, Gauba K, Tewari A, Chawla HS. Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2002; 19: 118–122.
- 18Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of restorative materials in primary teeth class II lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 39: 315–321.
- 19Roberts JF, Attari N, Sherriff M. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J 2005; 198: 427–431.
- 20Kitty MY, Wei SHY. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 1088–1096.
- 21Kilpatrick NM, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars – a clinical-trial. Br Dent J 1995; 179: 175–179.
- 22Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tornes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent 1999; 27: 437–442.
- 23Kotsanos N, Arizos S. Evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer serving both as indirect pulp therapy and as restorative material for primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2011; 12: 170–175.
- 24Kramer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of a condensable metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Br Dent J 2001; 190: 317–321.
- 25Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.
- 26Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
- 27Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP. A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified. Glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 1245–1253.
- 28Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M et al. FDI World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12: 259–272.
- 29Buecher K, Metz I, Pitchika V, Hickel R, Kuehnisch J. Survival characteristics of composite restorations in primary teeth. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 1653–1662.
- 30Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van ‘HM, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res 2002; 36: 437–444.
- 31Leith R, O'Connell AC. A clinical study evaluating success of 2 commercially available preveneered primary molar stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2011; 33: 300–306.
- 32Holst A. A 3-year clinical evaluation of Ketac-Silver restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J 1996; 20: 209–214.
- 33Croll TP, Bar-Zion V, Segura A, Donly KJ. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth – A retrospective evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132: 1110–1116.
- 34Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation. Br Dent J 2002; 193: 339–342.
- 35Webman M, Mulki E, Roldan R, Arevalo O, Roberts JF, Garcia-Godoy F. A retrospective study of the 3-year survival rate of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement class ii restorations in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 40: 8–13.
- 36Rutar J, McAllan L, tyas MJ. Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002; 12: 146–147.
- 37Peters TC, Roeters JJ, Frankenmolen FW. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 1-year results. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 83–88.
- 38Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH et al. Anterior composite restorations: a systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1214–1224.
- 39Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14: 407–431.
- 40Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, Dos Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43: 1043–1050.
- 41Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations–a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 481–495.
- 42Schueler IM, Hiller M, Roloff T, Kuehnisch J, Heinrich-Weltzien R. Clinical success of stainless steel crowns placed under general anaesthesia in primary molars: an observational follow up study. J Dent 2014; 42: 1396–1403.
- 43Anusavice KJ. Standardizing failure, success, and survival decisions in clinical studies of ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 102–111.
- 44Roberts JF, Sherriff M. The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown molar restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J 1990; 169: 237–244.
- 45Innes NP, Ricketts D, Chong LY, Keightley AJ, Lamont T, Santamaria RM. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD005512.
- 46Attari N, Roberts JF. Restoration of primary teeth with crowns: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2006; 7: 58–62; discussion 3.
- 47Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 481–508.
- 48Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth: updated for 2014. Pediatr Dent 2015; 37: 163–170.
- 49Goettems ML, Zborowski EJ, Costa FD, Costa VP, Torriani DD. Nonpharmacologic intervention on the prevention of pain and anxiety during pediatric dental care: a systematic review. Acad Pediatr 2017; 17: 110–119.
- 50Wang Y, Li C, Yuan H et al. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 9: CD009858.
- 51Donly KJ. Restorative dentistry for children. Dent Clin North Am 2013; 57: 75–82.
- 52Raggio DP, Tedesco TK, Calvo AF, Braga MM. Do glass ionomer cements prevent caries lesions in margins of restorations in primary teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147: 177–185.
- 53Hara AT, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues AL Jr. Cariostatic effect of fluoride-containing restorative systems associated with dentifrices on root dentin. J Dent 2002; 30: 205–212.
- 54Cury JA, de Oliveira BH, dos Santos AP, Tenuta LM. Are fluoride releasing dental materials clinically effective on caries control? Dent Mater 2016; 32: 323–333.
- 55Cenci MS, Tenuta LM, Pereira-Cenci T, Del Bel Cury AA, ten Cate JM, Cury JA. Effect of microleakage and fluoride on enamel-dentine demineralization around restorations. Caries Res 2008; 42: 369–379.
- 56Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S. Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2011; 12: 5–14.
- 57Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Combinations of topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, varnishes) versus single topical fluoride for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; CD002781.
- 58Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res 2017; 31: e56.
- 59de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugers NHJ, Frencken JE. Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 117–124.
- 60Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001; 23: 24–27.
- 61Abo-Hamar SE, El-Desouky SS, Abu Hamila NA. Two-year clinical performance in primary teeth of nano-filled versus conventional resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Quintessence Int 2015; 46: 381–388.
- 62Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, Van Dijken JWV. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars – A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand 1997; 55: 255–260.
- 63Folkesson UH, Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JW. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J 1999; 23: 1–9.
- 64Innes NP, Clarkson JE, Speed C, Douglas GV, Maguire A, Fi CTC. The FiCTION dental trial protocol – filling children's teeth: indicated or not? BMC Oral Health 2013; 13: 25.
- 65Frencken JE. The state-of-the-art of ART restorations. Dent Update 2014; 41: 218–220, 22–4.
- 66Welbury RR. The Hall Technique 10 years on: its effect and influence. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 421–422.
Citing Literature
