Survival time of direct dental restorations in adults
Sobrevida de restaurações dentárias diretas em adultos
Dutra, Thaís Torres Barros; Tapety, Zoraia Ibiapina; Mendes, Regina Ferraz; Moita Neto, José Machado; Prado Júnior, Raimundo Rosendo
Abstract
Introduction: The presence of dental caries is the main reason for the placement and replacement of restorations. Maintaining restorations to a satisfactory clinical condition is a challenge, despite the evolution of materials and surgical operative techniques. Objective: To investigate the survival time and technical-operatory characteristics of dental restorations among adults in Teresina-PI. Material and method: Data collection was carried out from September 2009 to January 2010 at a non-profit dental service. Data were collected at the moment of restoration replacement. The sample consisted of 262 defective restorations in 139 individuals. Survival time was calculated using the placement date that was registered on the individual’s dental form. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the survival time of the different types of restorations and the chi-square test was used to assess the association between qualitative variables, at a 5% significance level. Result: The median survival time of the restorations was 2 years. The survival time for amalgam was higher than for composite and glass ionomer cement (p=0.004). The most replaced dental material was the composite (66.4%). The majority of the replaced restorations had been placed in anterior teeth, in proximal surfaces. Conclusion: Amalgam restorations have a longer survival time than composite resin. Technical and operatory variables had no influence on the survival time of restorations. Dental restorations have a low survival time and this fact might be associated with the decion-making process that is adopted by the professionals.
Keywords
Resumo
Introdução: A cárie dentária é o principal motivo para a instalação e troca de restaurações. A preservação destas em condição clínica satisfatória é um desafio, apesar da evolução dos materiais e técnicas cirúrgico-operatórias. Objetivo: Investigar o tempo de sobrevida e características técnico-operatórias das restaurações dentárias diretas de adultos em Teresina, Piauí. Material e método: A coleta de dados ocorreu de setembro de 2009 a janeiro de 2010, em clínicas de tratamento odontológico sem fins lucrativos. Os dados técnicos e operatórios do preparo cavitário e da restauração foram coletados no momento da substituição. A sobrevida foi calculada a partir da data de instalação que constava no prontuário. Os dados foram registrados em um formulário criado com esse fim. Kruskal-Wallis e Mann-Whitney foram empregados para comparar a sobrevida dos diferentes tipos de restaurações e o teste qui-quadrado para associações entre variáveis qualitativas, ambos com nível de significância de 5%. Resultado: As 262 substituições de restaurações deficientes estavam em 139 pacientes. A mediana de sobrevida das restaurações foi 2 anos. As restaurações de amálgama tiveram sobrevivência maior que as de resina composta (p=0,004). O material restaurador mais substituído foi resina composta (66,4%). A maioria das restaurações localizava-se em dentes anteriores e em preparos proximais. Conclusão: As restaurações de amálgama teve sobrevida maior que as de resina composta. As variáveis técnico-operacionais não influenciaram na taxa de substituições. As restaurações diretas possuem reduzido tempo de sobrevida o que pode estar associada à filosofia adotada pelo serviço para o tratamento fornecido.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Burke FJT, Wilson NHF, Cheung SW, Mjör IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent. 2001 July;29(5):317-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00022-7. PMid:11472803.
2. Forss H, Widström E. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004 Apr;62(2):82-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016350310008733. PMid:15198387.
3. Tyas MJ. Placement and replacement of restorations by selected practitioners. Aust Dent J. 2005 June;50(2):81-9, quiz 127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2005.tb00345.x. PMid:16050086.
4. Mjör IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Oct;136(10):1426-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0057. PMid:16255468.
5. Lustosa D No, Prado RR Jr, Mendes RF. Restaurações diretas no programa saúde da família em Teresina (PI). RGO – Rev Gaucha Odontol. 2007 Jan-Mar;55(1):55-60.
6. Hannig C, Kupilas FJ, Wolkewitz M, Attin T. Validity of decision criteria for replacement of fillings. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2009;119(4):328-38. PMid:19485073.
7. Manhart 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 Sep-Oct;29(5):481-508. PMid:15470871.
8. Moncada G, Fernández E, Martín J, Arancibia C, Mjör IA, Gordan VV. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2008 May-June;33(3):258-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/07-113. PMid:18505215.
9. Christensen GJ. The advantages of minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Nov;136(11):1563-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0088. PMid:16329421.
10. Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002 Mar-Apr;27(2):117-23. PMid:11931133.
11. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent. 1997 Nov;25(6):459-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00066-8. PMid:9604577.
12. Mjör IA, Holst D, Eriksen HM. Caries and restoration prevention. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 May;139(5):565-70, quiz 626. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0216. PMid:18451372.
13. Asghar S, Ali A, Rashid S, Hussain T. Replacement of resin-based composite restorations in permanent teeth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010 Oct;20(10):639-43. PMid:20943103.
14. Stefanski S, van Dijken JW. Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Feb;16(1):147-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0485-8. PMid:21104100.
15. Setcos JC, Khosravi R, Wilson NH, Shen C, Yang M, Mjör IA. Repair or replacement of amalgam restorations: decisions at a USA and a UK dental school. Oper Dent. 2004 July-Aug;29(4):392-7. PMid:15279477.
16. Moncada G, Martin J, Fernández E, Hempel MC, Mjör IA, Gordan VV. Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Apr;140(4):425-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0191. PMid:19339531.
17. Bernardo M, Luís H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 June;138(6):775-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0265. PMid:17545266.
18. Gilbert GH, Williams OD, Rindal DB, Pihlstrom DJ, Benjamin PL, Wallace MC. The creation and development of the dental practice-based research network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jan;139(1):74-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0024. PMid:18167389.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email