Search

This retrospective study evaluated the performance of posterior composites after up to 33 years of clinical service and investigated factors associated with the risk of failures over time including patient- and tooth-related variables.Patients who received at least one Class I or Class II direct composite restoration in a private office in 1986-1992 and had follow-up appointments were included. Failures and interventions over time were investigated using the dental records. A follow-up clinical recall was carried out in 2020. Two scenarios were considered: restorations that did not require any intervention (success) or restorations that were repaired and still functional (survival). Multivariate Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed using success and survival rates (p 0.05).One hundred patient records and 683 restorations were included. A total of 353 failures were reported (success rate= 48%). Main reasons for failure were fracture and secondary caries. Most interventions after failures were repairs. Replacements were registered in 183 cases (survival rate= 73%). Annual failure rates were below 2.5% (success) and 1.1% (survival). Larger restorations and maxillary molars had higher failure risks. No significant differences in success rates among different resin composites was observed. A typical observation in this sample of restorations was the presence of moderate to advanced signs of aging, including marginal and surface staining, wear, chipping, changes in anatomical shape and translucency. Clearly aged restorations were still clinically satisfactory.This long-term, practice-based study indicates that resin composites can be used to restore posterior teeth with a long-lasting durability.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: This 10-year practice-based study aimed to compare survival and success of direct resin composite and ceramic veneers placed in a private dental practice, between January 2008 and March 2014. METHODS: Data were retrieved from a clinical practice's records and were anonymized typed into electronic files. All veneer information was recorded, including previous restorations, repairs or failures, materials used, dates, patient, and age. RESULTS: We analyzed 1459 veneer restorations, of which 1043 (71.5%) were direct composite, and 416 (28.5%) were ceramic, placed in 341 patients. The mean patients' age was 47.8 years, and the mean number of restorations per patient was 4.3 restorations. During all follow-up, 957 (65.6%) veneers were successful without any repair, 252 (17.3%) were repaired and still in place, and 250 (17.1%) had a failure that resulted in replacement. Replacements were usually carried out with the same material placed at first. Considering success analysis, annual failure rates (AFR) for veneers in 5 and 10 years were 9.1% and 10% for direct composite and 2.9% and 2.8% for ceramic, respectively. Survival analysis showed AFR of 3.9% and 4.1% for composite and 1.4% and 1.2% for ceramic at the same periods. Cox regression was made for both success and survival outcomes. Composite veneers presented a higher risk of failure than ceramic veneers with higher hazard ratios for survival (HR) [HR 4.00 (2.74-5.83)] and success [HR 5.16 (2.65-10.04)]. SIGNIFICANCE: Ceramic veneers had superior longevity than direct composite veneers in both success and survival analysis.