| Title |
Longevity and associated risk factors in adhesive restorations of young permanent teeth after complete and selective caries removal: a retrospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-016-1832-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luciano Casagrande, Alejandra Tejeda Seminario, Marcos Britto Correa, Stefanie Bressan Werle, Marisa Maltz, Flávio Fernando Demarco, Fernando Borba de Araujo |
| Abstract |
The aim of this retrospective university-based study has been to evaluate the longevity and factors associated with failures of adhesive restorations performed in deep carious lesions of permanent molars after complete (CCR) and selective caries removal (SCR). The sample was composed of composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorations placed in permanent molars of children attending a university dental service who were followed up for up to 36 months. Information collected retrospectively from clinical records was used for analyzing data. The following factors were investigated: gender, caries experience, visible plaque and gingival bleeding indexes, operator's experiences, number of restored surfaces, and type of capping and restorative materials. The Kaplan-Meier survival test was used to analyze the longevity of the restorations. Multivariate Cox regression analysis with shared frailty was used to assess the factors associated with failures (p < 0.05). Four hundred seventy-seven restorations carried out in 297 children (9.1 ± 1.7 years) were included in the analysis. The survival of the restorations reached 57.9 % up to 36 months follow-up with an overall annual failure rate of 16.7 %. There was no difference in restoration longevity when CCR or SCR was performed (p = 0.163); however, CCR presented more pulp exposure (p < 0.001). Multi-surface restorations showed more failures than single-surface (HR 3.22, 95 % CI 1.49; 6.97), and teeth restored with RMGIC had a lower survival rate than those restored with composite resin (HR 4.11, 95 % CI 1.91; 8.81). Patients with evidence of gingivitis had more risk of failure in their restorations (HR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.33; 6.24). Overall, adhesive restorations performed in young permanent molars of high caries risk children presented limited survival, regardless of the caries removal technique. Risk factors for failure were identified as multi-surface fillings, RMGIC restorative material, and poor oral hygiene, reflected by gingival bleeding. Composite fillings associated with a strict caries preventive regimen may play an important role in the survival of restorations placed in high caries risk children. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 50% |
| Latvia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 41 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 53% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 44 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,409,624
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#728
of 1,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,735
of 313,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#17
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.