IADR Abstract Archives
Randomized 30-Year Follow-up of Class II restorations of Three Resin Composites
Objectives: To evaluate in a 30 year randomized controlled study the durability of Class II restorations made with three conventional resin composites.
Methods: Each of 30 participants (mean age 30 yrs, range 20-44) received at least three (one set) as similar as possible Class II restorations. The three cavities were chosen at random to be restored with chemical-cured (P10, Miradapt) and light-cured resin composites (P30). A chemical-cured enamel bonding agent was applied after etching of the enamel. The chemical-cured resin composites were placed in bulk and the light-cured in increments. One operator placed 99 restorations (33 sets). The restorations were evaluated with modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years. Statistical analyses were performed by the Kaplan Meier, log-rank test and Cox regression analyses.
Results: After 30 years, drop outs were 5 participants with 15 restorations (15%). Seven participants were considered as caries risk and eight participants as having active parafunctional habits. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 24 teeth. In total 28 restorations, 9 P10, 12 P30 and 7 Miradapt restorations failed during the 30 years. The main reasons for failure were secondary caries (39.2%) and material fracture (35.7%). 64% of the secondary caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants and 70% of the material fractures occurred in participants with active parafunctional habits. The overall success rate at 30 years was 63%, with an annual failure rate of 1.1%. 68%-81% of the restorations showed non-acceptable color match. No statistical significant difference in survival rate was found between the three resin composites (p=0.45). Tooth type, cavity size, age, and gender of the participants did not significantly affect the probability of failure.
Conclusions: The three conventional resin composites showed good clinical performance during the 30 year evaluation.
Methods: Each of 30 participants (mean age 30 yrs, range 20-44) received at least three (one set) as similar as possible Class II restorations. The three cavities were chosen at random to be restored with chemical-cured (P10, Miradapt) and light-cured resin composites (P30). A chemical-cured enamel bonding agent was applied after etching of the enamel. The chemical-cured resin composites were placed in bulk and the light-cured in increments. One operator placed 99 restorations (33 sets). The restorations were evaluated with modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years. Statistical analyses were performed by the Kaplan Meier, log-rank test and Cox regression analyses.
Results: After 30 years, drop outs were 5 participants with 15 restorations (15%). Seven participants were considered as caries risk and eight participants as having active parafunctional habits. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 24 teeth. In total 28 restorations, 9 P10, 12 P30 and 7 Miradapt restorations failed during the 30 years. The main reasons for failure were secondary caries (39.2%) and material fracture (35.7%). 64% of the secondary caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants and 70% of the material fractures occurred in participants with active parafunctional habits. The overall success rate at 30 years was 63%, with an annual failure rate of 1.1%. 68%-81% of the restorations showed non-acceptable color match. No statistical significant difference in survival rate was found between the three resin composites (p=0.45). Tooth type, cavity size, age, and gender of the participants did not significantly affect the probability of failure.
Conclusions: The three conventional resin composites showed good clinical performance during the 30 year evaluation.