Risk Factors for Dental Restoration Survival: A Practice-Based Study. (April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Laske, M.; Opdam, N.J.M.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Braspenning, J.C.C.; Huysmans, M.C.D.N.J.M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of dental research. Volume 98:Number 4(2019)
• Page Start: 414
• Page End: 422
• Publication Date: 2019-04
• Subjects: clinical study -- risk assessment -- dental caries -- bruxism -- dental restoration failure -- cohort studies; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Research -- Periodicals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1177/0022034519827566
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-0345

Abstract

To improve patient dental care, it is necessary to identify possible risk factors for the failing of restorations. This practice-based cohort study investigated the performance and influence of possible risk factors at the level of the practice, patient, tooth, and restoration on survival of direct class II restorations. Electronic patient files from 11 Dutch general practices were collected, and 31, 472 restorations placed between January 2015 and October 2017 were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier statistics were performed; annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated; and variables were assessed by multivariable Cox regression analysis. The observation time of restorations varied from 0 to 2.7 y, resulting in a mean AFR of 7.8% at 2 y. However, wide variation in AFRs existed among the operators, varying between 3.6% and 11.4%. A wide range of patient-related variables is related to a high risk for reintervention: patient age (elderly: hazard ratio [HR], 1.372), general health (medically compromised: HR, 1.478), periodontal status (periodontal problems: HR, 1.207), caries risk and risk for parafunctional habits (high: HR, 1.687), restorations in molar teeth (HR, 1.383), restorations placed in endodontically treated teeth (HR, 1.890), and multisurface restorations (≥4 surfaces: HR, 1.345). Restorations placed due to fracture were more prone to fail than restorations placed due to caries. When patient-related risk factors were excluded, remaining risk factors considerably changed in their effect and significance: the effect of operator, age of the patient, and endodontic treatment increased; the effect of the diagnosis decreased; and the socioeconomic status became significant (high: HR, 0.873). This study demonstrated that a wide variation of risk factors on the practice, patient, and tooth levels influences the survival of class II restorations. To provide personalized dental care, it is important to identify and record potential risk factors. Therefore, we recommend further clinical studies to include these patient risk factors in data collection and analysis.