IADR Abstract Archives
Survival Rate of Two-Surface Composite Restorations versus Stainless Steel Crown
Objectives: Few studies document the use of stainless steel crown versus multi-surface amalgam. However, little is known about stainless steel crown versus multi-surface composite restoration. This study examined the survival rates of multi-surface composite, stainless steel crown as well as the longevity of restoration to replacement with a crown in a pediatric population seen at a dental training institution.
Methods: Data from AxiUm (Marquette Dental School electronic dental records) for all children with at least one 2-surface composite restoration or stainless steel crown on a primary first or second molar from 2007 to September 2015 were analyzed. Patients were censored at their last clinic visit. The primary outcome was the time to a new restoration or a stainless steel crown on the same tooth, with time to a crown as a secondary outcome. The cumulative incidence of the event of interest was estimated using 95% confidence intervals and compared between groups using Fine-Gray regression.
Results: A total of 6,288 teeth of 2,044 unique children with 51% male were included in this analysis. At 3 years follow-up, 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-2.6%) of crowns and 21% (95% CI: 19%-23%) of multi–surface composite restorations will fail needing a replacement (hazard ratio HR= 14; 95% CI 9- 22, p<0.001). Also, 6.8% (95% CI: 5.6%-8.3%) of fillings will be replaced with a crown (HR=4 vs SS crown, 95% CI: 3-7).
Conclusions: The study demonstrates that stainless steel crowns have better survival rates than multi-surface composite restoration in primary molars.
Methods: Data from AxiUm (Marquette Dental School electronic dental records) for all children with at least one 2-surface composite restoration or stainless steel crown on a primary first or second molar from 2007 to September 2015 were analyzed. Patients were censored at their last clinic visit. The primary outcome was the time to a new restoration or a stainless steel crown on the same tooth, with time to a crown as a secondary outcome. The cumulative incidence of the event of interest was estimated using 95% confidence intervals and compared between groups using Fine-Gray regression.
Results: A total of 6,288 teeth of 2,044 unique children with 51% male were included in this analysis. At 3 years follow-up, 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-2.6%) of crowns and 21% (95% CI: 19%-23%) of multi–surface composite restorations will fail needing a replacement (hazard ratio HR= 14; 95% CI 9- 22, p<0.001). Also, 6.8% (95% CI: 5.6%-8.3%) of fillings will be replaced with a crown (HR=4 vs SS crown, 95% CI: 3-7).
Conclusions: The study demonstrates that stainless steel crowns have better survival rates than multi-surface composite restoration in primary molars.