Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 3.1 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Investigations Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1007/s00784-024-05965-z

Jukka Leinonen, Hannu Vähänikkilä, Remo Luksepp, Vuokko Anttonen

{"title":"Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Jukka Leinonen, Hannu Vähänikkilä, Remo Luksepp, Vuokko Anttonen","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-05965-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to determine the survival of class II composite restorations in premolars and molars with and without base bulk-fill composite in general dental practice.Materials and methods: We collected data from the electronic patient files of the Public Dental Services in the City of Oulu, Finland. The timespan of data collection was from August 15th, 2002, to August 9th, 2018. The data consisted of class II composite restorations both with and without base bulk-fill composite. We compared the survival of these restorations using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the log-rank test, survival rates, and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.Results: We observed 297 restorations in 96 patients. The five-year survival rates for restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite were comparable in premolars (77.5% and 77.4%, respectively) but different in molars (69.9% and 57.8%, respectively, p = 0.069). In molars, the restorations with base bulk-fill composite exhibited a higher survival rate in 14 patients, whereas in 11 patients the restorations without base bulk-fill composites exhibited a higher survival rate. In 24 patients the survival rates were similar for restorations with and without the base bulk-fill composite (p = 0.246).Conclusions: The restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite had similar longevity.Clinical relevance: Base bulk-fill composites are safe to use in general practice due to their similar survival rates compared to conventional composites.","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"28 10","pages":"558"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439851/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05965-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the survival of class II composite restorations in premolars and molars with and without base bulk-fill composite in general dental practice.

Materials and methods: We collected data from the electronic patient files of the Public Dental Services in the City of Oulu, Finland. The timespan of data collection was from August 15th, 2002, to August 9th, 2018. The data consisted of class II composite restorations both with and without base bulk-fill composite. We compared the survival of these restorations using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the log-rank test, survival rates, and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Results: We observed 297 restorations in 96 patients. The five-year survival rates for restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite were comparable in premolars (77.5% and 77.4%, respectively) but different in molars (69.9% and 57.8%, respectively, p = 0.069). In molars, the restorations with base bulk-fill composite exhibited a higher survival rate in 14 patients, whereas in 11 patients the restorations without base bulk-fill composites exhibited a higher survival rate. In 24 patients the survival rates were similar for restorations with and without the base bulk-fill composite (p = 0.246).

Conclusions: The restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite had similar longevity.

Clinical relevance: Base bulk-fill composites are safe to use in general practice due to their similar survival rates compared to conventional composites.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

使用和不使用基底填充复合材料的二级修复体的五年存活率：一项回顾性队列研究。

研究目的本研究旨在确定普通牙科诊所中使用或不使用基底大量填充复合材料的前磨牙和磨牙二类复合材料修复体的存活率：我们从芬兰奥卢市公共牙科服务机构的电子患者档案中收集数据。数据收集的时间跨度为 2002 年 8 月 15 日至 2018 年 8 月 9 日。数据包括使用和不使用基底填充复合材料的二类复合材料修复体。我们使用 Kaplan-Meier 生存曲线、对数秩检验、生存率和 Wilcoxon 符号行列检验比较了这些修复体的存活率：结果：我们观察了 96 名患者的 297 次修复。在前磨牙中，使用和不使用基底填充复合材料的修复体的五年存活率相当（分别为 77.5%和 77.4%），但在磨牙中却不同（分别为 69.9%和 57.8%，p = 0.069）。在磨牙中，14 名患者的基底填充复合材料修复体的存活率较高，而 11 名患者的无基底填充复合材料修复体的存活率较高。在 24 名患者中，使用和不使用基底填充复合材料的修复体的存活率相似（p = 0.246）：结论：有基底填充复合材料和没有基底填充复合材料的修复体寿命相似：临床意义：由于基底填充复合材料的存活率与传统复合材料相似，因此在普通临床中使用是安全的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

5.90%

发文量

484

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.