Effectiveness of adhesive containing MDPB: A practice-based clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This prospective practice-based trial assessed the longevity of composite restorations made with an adhesive containing an antibacterial monomer compared to a conventional adhesive. METHODS: 9 general practices in the Netherlands were provided with two composite resin adhesives, each for a period of 9 months. Adhesive P contained the quaternary ammonium salt MDPB, and Adhesive S was a control. Patient's age and caries risk, as well as tooth type/number, reason for restoration placement, used restorative material and adhesive, and restored surfaces were recorded. All interventions carried out on these teeth in the 6 years after restoration were extracted from the electronic patient records, along with their date, type, reason, and surfaces. Two dependent variables were defined: general failure, and failure due to secondary caries. All data handling and multiple Cox regression analysis were carried out in R 4.0.5. RESULTS: 11 dentists from 7 practices made 10,151 restorations over a period of two years in 5102 patients. 4591 restorations were made with adhesive P, whereas 5560 were made with adhesive S. The observation period was up to 6.29 years, median observation time was 3.74 years. Cox regression showed no significant difference between the two adhesive materials when corrected for age, tooth type and caries risk, for general failure nor failure due to caries. SIGNIFICANCE: No difference in restoration survival could be shown between composite restorations made using an adhesive containing MDPB and control. Restorations made with the adhesive containing MDPB also did not fail more or less frequently due to secondary caries. This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov with identifier NCT05118100.

[Risk factors for class II dental restoration survival:a practice-based study]. / Risicofactoren voor klasse II-restauratieoverleving: een praktijkgebaseerd onderzoek.

The aim of this practice-based cohort study was to determine the performance and influence of possible variables in class II restorations related to practice, patient, tooth, and restoration. To do this, electronic patient files from 11 general practices in the Netherlands were collected, and 31,472 restorations placed between January 2015 and October 2017 were analysed. The observation time of restorations varied from 0 to 2.7 years, resulting in a mean annual failure rate (AFR) of 7.8% at 2 years. However, wide variation in AFRs existed among the operators, varying between 3.6% and 11.4%. An excess of patient-related variables, such as age, general health, periodontal status, caries risk and the presence of parafunctional habits and tooth or restoration-related factors, increases the risk of reintervention. Restorations placed due to fracture were more prone to fail than restorations placed due to caries. This study demonstrated that a wide variety of risk factors on the practice, patient, and tooth levels influences the survival of class II restorations.

[A PhD completed. Restoration longevity: practice based research in the Netherlands]. / Serie: Hora est. Levensduur van restauraties: practicebased onderzoek in Nederland.

Although composite and indirect restorations have been used for many years in oral care, clinical studies of the survival rates of restorations placed by general practitioners are lacking. The most important objective of this doctoral research was to investigate the influence of possible risk factors related to practice/operator, patient and tooth/restoration on the longevity of direct restorations. A large database of electronic patient files of general practitioners within the Practice-Based Research Network Nijmegen (PBRN) enabled us to answer these research questions. Practitioners within the PBRN placed restorations with a mean longevity of 12 years, but considerable differences existed among practitioners. Individual patient risk factors such as general health, periodontal status,risk of bruxism and especially caries risk play a major role in restoration failure. Restorations in molars, restorations with multiple treated surfaces and restorations placed in endodontically treated teeth show greater risk for restorative intervention.

Risk Factors for Dental Restoration Survival: A Practice-Based Study.

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.

Longevity of Anterior Composite Restorations in a General Dental Practice-Based Network.

This practice-based study investigated the performance of a large set of anterior composite restorations placed by a group of 24 general practices. Based on data from electronic patient files, the longevity of 72,196 composite restorations was analyzed, as placed in 29,855 patients by 47 general dental practitioners between 1996 and 2011. Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated, and variables associated with failure were assessed by multivariate Cox regression analysis with shared frailty for 2 age groups (5 to 24 y and ≥25 y). The observation time of restorations varied from 2 wk to 13 y, with a mean of 4.8 y, resulting in a mean AFR of 4.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.5% to 4.6%) at 5 y. Among dentists, a relevant variation in clinical performance of restorations was observed, with an AFR between 2% and 11%. The risk for restoration failure increased in individuals up to 12 y old, having a 17% higher risk for failure when compared with the age group of 18 to 25 y (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.34), and for the age group >65 y, having a 81% higher risk for failure when compared with 25 to 35 y (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.66 to 1.98). In both multivariate models, there was a difference in longevity of restorations for different teeth in the arch, with fillings in central incisors being the most prone to failure and replacement. It was concluded that anterior composite restorations placed by general dental practitioners showed an adequate clinical performance, with a relevant difference in outcome among operators.

Ten-Year Survival of Class II Restorations Placed by General Practitioners.

The aim of this retrospective practice-based study was to investigate the survival of direct class II restorations placed by a group of general dental practitioners (GDPs) and to analyze the effect of practice-, patient-, and tooth/restoration-related factors. Electronic patient files of 24 general dental practices were used for collecting the data for this study. From the patient files, survival rates of 222,836 composites, amalgams, glass ionomers, and compomers placed in 61,121 patients by 67 GDPs between 1999 and 2011 were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier statistics and a multiple Cox regression. The investigated group of GDPs placed restorations with a satisfactory survival (mean AFR10, 4.9%; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 7.7), although a wide variation in annual failure rate (AFR) existed between the different operators, varying between 2.6% and 7.0%. Restorations placed in young adults (21-30 y old) survived longest, whereas they showed a shorter survival in children (hazard ratio [HR], 1.553) and the elderly (HR, 1.593). Restorations in molar teeth, restorations placed in endodontically treated teeth, and multisurface restorations are more at risk for reintervention. However, restoration size (included surfaces) has a greater impact on restoration survival in premolar teeth. For the future, improved data collection at the practice/operator, patient, and tooth/restoration level (e.g., risk assessment and diagnoses) will provide the opportunity to evaluate even more extensively the risk factors involved. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study give insight into the long-term survival of direct dental restorations and the influencing practice-, patient-, and tooth/restoration-related variables.