Anterior Composite Restorations a Systematic Review on Long-term Survival and Reasons for Failure

Twelvemonth : 2021  | Volume : 24  | Issue : 5  | Page : 415-420

Long-term survival and reasons for failure in direct anterior composite restorations: A systematic review

Abstract

This study investigated the clinical longevity of direct anterior blended restorations. Clinical studies exploring survival of inductive light-cured blended restorations with minimum of 2 years of follow-up were screened and reasons related to failure of direct anterior blended restorations were noted. PubMed, LILIACS, ProQuest, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE databases were searched with no brake on appointment. Articles obtainable in the English language solely were enclosed during this study. Furthermore, manufactures to which reviewers had access were solely enclosed in ProQuest. Reference lists of eligible studies were mitt searched. Initially, four reviewers screened the titles/abstracts of 947 studies. Out of those studies, a full of 47 manufactures were selected for full text reading, from which 25 studies were selected for qualitative synthesis. The studies that were enclosed evaluated the clinical performance of composite course III and class 4 restorations (11 studies), which were placed due to caries, fracture, or replaced former restorations, veneers and full coverage restorations placed for esthetic reasons (9 studies), restorations in worn teeth (iv studies) with one report including combination of three type of studies listed to a higher place. A total of 75,637 restorations were evaluated and annual failure rates were in the range of 0% to 27.11% with survival rates ranging from 28.half-dozen% to 100%. Form III restorations had lower failure rates than alternative restorations. Fracture was the main cause of failure of restorations. The factors related to failure of restoration were agglutinative technique, blazon of blended resin used, replacement of restoration first placed, and time required to make up the restorations.

Keywords: Composite; direct; restoration; survival

How to cite this article:
Shah YR, Shiraguppi VL, Deosarkar BA, Shelke UR. Long-term survival and reasons for failure in direct anterior blended restorations: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent 2021;24:415-20

How to cite this URL:
Shah YR, Shiraguppi VL, Deosarkar BA, Shelke UR. Long-term survival and reasons for failure in direct anterior composite restorations: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent [series online] 2021 [cited 2022 Apr 17];24:415-xx. Bachelor from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2021/24/5/415/339141

Dental caries remains a malady that affects an oversized office of the world'south population.^[1] There is an oversized need for the restorative procedures in odontology that consumes nigh of the operating time of the dentists within the world.^[2] Composite resins have gained quality as a restorative choice thanks to their esthetic backdrop and minimal invasiveness.^[3] Thus, composite resin is the premier material for restoration of the anterior and posterior teeth these days.^{[iv],[5],[half-dozen]} Literature shows that restorations with this cloth will gift of failure rates and very long time survival in posterior teeth.^[vii],[8] Secondary decay and fracture are the most reasons for failure within the posterior teeth.^[8],[9] At that place is the lack of proof in the literature concerning the clinical performance of anterior composite restorations inside the long run.^[five] The increasing demand for esthetics inside the anterior region suggests that restoration failure autonomously from fracture and disuse will occur at an oversized extent inside the inductive region. A variety of composites are obtainable as a preferred selection for restoration in anterior teeth; in vitro tests sometimes indicate differences among the materials while the in vivo tests practise non indicate the same.^{[10],[11],[12]} The aim of this study was to assemble the information by conducting a systematic review of the literature on the long-term survival of the composite resin restorations placed within the anterior region. Clinical prospective and retrospective studies investigating the survival of anterior composite restorations with follow-up amount of minimum 2 years were searched to list the well-nigh reasons of failure and whether or not the factors associated with patient, operator and materials would impact the longevity of direct inductive composite restorations.

Eligibility criteria

This systematic review is reportable as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) argument tips.^[13] Before outset the systematic review, it had been registered on PROSPERO with identification number CRD42020211176. Eligible studies were longitudinal prospective or retrospective clinical trials that evaluated the clinical survival of direct restorations in anterior permanent teeth placed with the visible low-cal cured blended resins. The restorations evaluated enclosed Class III and Class Iv cavities, direct veneers and total-coverage build ups. The studies enclosed had a minimum of 2 years of follow-upwardly.

Search strategy

Search for studies from totally dissimilar databases (PubMed, LILIACS, ProQuest, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE) was executed with no brake on date when the study was published. Studies which were a part of qualitative synthesis were published from the year 1997 to 2018. Restriction was put on language and that's why studies in English but were selected. Search strategy was adult by taking reference from the study revealed past Demarco in 2015.^[14] The subsequent keywords were utilized in many combinations in numerous databases:

• Direct composite resins
• Anterior teeth
• Restorations
• Longitudinal study
• Retrospective study
• Dental laminates
• Dental veneers
• Clinical trial.

Study option

Four reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of all the known studies for eligibility (70,690 studies). All the studies that met the eligibility criteria were selected for full-text reading (47 studies). Full-text articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria were enclosed in the study (25 studies) and processed for knowledge extraction and the reasons for exclusion were recorded. Judgment on inclusion or exclusion was made following discussion with a skilful researcher.

Data extraction

Data from the consummate text manufactures were extracted by the two reviewers. Knowledge array was done on the overall study information, intervention characteristics, and longevity outcomes for anterior direct composite restorations (annual failure rate, survival or success rate, and factors related to the restoration failure. For studies that presented results in survival or success charge per unit, the AFR were calculated according to the formula: (one − y) z = (1 − x), in which 'y' expresses the mean AFR and 'x' the total failure rate at 'z' years given by Demarco et al. in 2015.^[14] Hateful of the survival rates was calculated for the studies revealing two survival rates for two different types of composites in the same study. Data were divided into three groups according to the type of restoration assessed.^[15]

Data analysis

Loftier heterogeneousness was seen among the enclosed studies concerning the study style, methods, and outcomes. Therefore, a meta-assay was not conducted, and qualitative synthesis was performed for the information collected.

The sequence of finding out the manufactures is given within the flow nautical chart of this systematic review (PRISMA [Flow Nautical chart 1]). From the initial 396 articles known in one case removing the duplicates, 47 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 25 studies were subjected to analysis. [Table one] shows all the studies enclosed during this systematic review and details nerveless from every study. Most of the studies were prospective longitudinal studies with follow-upwards periods starting from 2 years to 17 years. Iv studies reported follow-up amount of quite 10 years from the chosen 25 studies in this systematic review. The number of restorations assessed varied greatly amongst the studies enclosed for qualitative analysis. Most of the studies used the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for evaluating the success or failure of the composite restoration. Four studies used their own criteria to guess the restorations and remaining studies used modified ryge criteria or dental federation (FDI) criteria for the aforementioned purpose. Solely 2 studies reported no failure of the restoration in the follow-up period of upwardly to v years, whereas one study reported that the chance of the survival of the restoration was only fifty%.^{[sixteen],[17],[18]} The AFR ranged from 0% to 27.11% and the survival rates varied from zero to hundred per centum. In some of the studies mean survival charge per unit and mean AFR's were calculated; in example the written report reported two survival rates and AFR for unlike material tested or the dissimilar blazon of the tooth tested.^{[iv],[19],[20],[21]} But ten studies reported the associated reason for failure or the risk factor responsible for the failure. [Table two] reveals the associated reasons for the failure of the restoration provided past the chosen studies in which fracture was the foremost mutual reason for the failure of the restoration.

Table 1: Studies with at least 2 years of follow-up evaluating inductive composite restorations Click here to view

The need for the anterior composite restorations is continuously increasing because the patients are more cautious about their artful look. Hence, there was a desire to systematically review the long-term survival of inductive blended restorations. One review with meta-analysis has been reported on the aforementioned topic. The review enclosed solely prospective studies with observation fourth dimension of quite 2 years. Furthermore, within the meta-analysis, chemically cured composites and resin modified drinking glass ionomer cements were enclosed however retrospective studies were excluded. This resulted in the set of studies which were overlapping to only certain extent. The 10-year survival rates for the class III and form IV restorations were reported to exist 95% and 90% with AFR'south moving around 0.five%−1%.^[37] The AFR's of this report were not in line with the review discussed above.

Some other review reported in 2015 enclosed studies with follow-up period of more than 3 years reported the survival rates betwixt 53.4% to 100% and AFR's betwixt 0% to 4.1%.^[14] Several of the studies overlapped with this review during this study thanks to the very fact that studies with follow-up menstruation of more than 2 years were enclosed in this systematic review. Most of the studies used modified USPHS criteria for evaluating the failure or success of the restoration. 11 studies used the modified USPHS criteria, three studies used the USPHS criteria, 4 studies used their own criteria, four studies used the FDI criteria and four studies did non report the method of evaluation. The studies that used their own criteria compromise the comparisons among studies. The overall results of our report showed that inductive blended restorations have good clinical functioning history except one study published in 2011 which provided restorations to manage the localized anterior tooth wear.

A written report by Coelho de Souza in 2015 reported that there are higher probabilities of failure of the restoration in nonvital teeth. The AFR's for the vital teeth were 4.9%, whereas the AFR'south for the nonvital teeth were 9.8% within a follow-up time of around four and a ½ years.^[27] A written report reported by Van de Sande in 2018 reported that there was a differentiation in the survival rates when composite repair was non considered as a failure and when it was considered equally a failure. The form Iii and form IV restorations showed 69% survival and 2.4% AFR when repair was not considered as a failure, and 64% survival and 2.ix% AFR, respectively, when repair was considered as a failure.^[32]

A number of studies reported the reason or the gamble factor associated with the failure of the restoration. Fracture, tooth wear, color mismatch, nonvital teeth, massive restoration, retreatment take a chance, and adhesive technique used were some of the explanations for the failure of the restorations. Out of these, fracture was the foremost common reason for the failure of the restoration. The class IV restorations which involve the incisal edge are subjected to high masticatory loads with the fracture as the most mutual clinical outcome over time.^[4],[5] A study by Heintze showed that class IV restorations had double the failure rate than grade Three restorations.^[37]

A number of studies cocky-addressed patient and operator connected factors associated with the restoration failure. In i study that evaluated the build ups placed in worn teeth showed that long time required to place the restoration is associated with higher chances of the failure of the restoration.^[35] The report with the longest follow-up period of 17 years showed that composite with lower mechanical properties exhibited higher chances of failure than a blended with college filler content and rubberband modulus.^[v]

The studies included in this systematic review evaluated solely the restorations and not the patient factors. This is often disquisitional when more than one restoration is evaluated in a single individual. The clinical performance and longevity of the inductive blended restorations look good withal there will be a lot of improvement within the style of the clinical trials to judge the longevity of the inductive blended reasons and investigate the explanations for the failure of the restoration.

This review presents good clinical functioning of the anterior composite restorations and the main reason for failure is the fracture of the restoration and esthetic appearance. More than studies can be carried out in the well-designed manner to bank check the longevity of the anterior composite restorations in future.

Financial support and sponsorship

Self.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of involvement.

1.	Marcenes W, Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé Eastward, Flaxman A, Naghavi M, Lopez A, et al. Global burden of oral conditions in 1990-2010: A systematic analysis. J Dent Res 2013;92:592-7.
two.	Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Republic of iceland. Oper Dent 2002;27:117-23.
3.	Ferracane JL. Resin composite – State of the art. Dent Mater J 2011;27:29-38.
4.	Moura FR, Romano AR, Lund RG, Piva E, Rodrigues Júnior SA, Demarco FF. Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students. Braz Dent J 2011;22:111-6.
5.	Baldissera RA, Corrêa MB, Schuch HS, Collares K, Nascimento GG, Jardim PS, et al. Are there universal restorative composites for inductive and posterior teeth? J Paring 2013;41:1027-35.
6.	Demarco FF, Baldissera RA, Madruga FC, Simões RC, Lund RG, Correa MB, et al. Anterior composite restorations in clinical do: Findings from a survey with full general dental practitioners. J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21:497-504.
7.	van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Rodolpho PA, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Cenci MS. Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res 2013;92:78S-83S.
eight.	Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Paring Res 2014;93:943-ix.
9.	Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Paring Mater J 2012;28:87-101.
10.	de Moraes RR, Gonçalves Lde Due south, Lancellotti Air-conditioning, Consani Due south, Correr-Sobrinho 50, Sinhoreti MA. Nanohybrid resin composites: Nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? Oper Dent 2009;34:551-7.
11.	Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Paring Res 2008;87:710-9.
12.	Gresnigt MM, Kalk West, Ozcan M. Randomized controlled dissever-rima oris clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites. J Dent 2012;40:766-75.
13.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
fourteen.	Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, et al. Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater 2015;31:1214-24.
15.	Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The 5-year clinical performance of direct blended additions to correct tooth course and position. I. Esthetic qualities. Clin Oral Investig 1997;1:12-8.
xvi.	Al-Khayatt Equally, Ray-Chaudhuri A, Poyser NJ, Briggs PF, Porter RW, Kelleher MG, et al. Directly composite restorations for the worn mandibular anterior dentition: A 7-year follow-up of a prospective randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:389-401.
17.	Smales RJ, Berekally TL. Long-term survival of straight and indirect restorations placed for the treatment of avant-garde tooth wearable. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2007;15:two-six.
18.	Loomans BA, Kreulen CM, Huijs-Visser HE, Sterenborg BA, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans MC, et al. Clinical performance of total rehabilitations with directly composite in severe tooth wear patients: 3.5 Years results. J Dent 2018;lxx:97-103.
19.	Gulamali AB, Hemmings KW, Tredwin CJ, Petrie A. Survival assay of composite Dahl restorations provided to manage localised anterior tooth clothing (ten year follow-up). Br Paring J 2011;211:E9.
20.	Alonso Five, Caserio K. A clinical study of directly blended total-coverage crowns: Long-term results. Oper Dent 2012;37:432-41.
21.	Ergin Due east, Kutuk ZB, Cakir FY, Gurgan Southward. Comparison of two dissimilar composite resins used for tooth reshaping and diastema closure in a 4-yr follow-up. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21:1098-106. [PUBMED]  [Full text]
22.	Demirci M, Tuncer Due south, Öztaş E, Tekçe N, Uysal Ö. A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure afterwards orthodontic treatment. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2187-99.
23.	Lempel East, Lovász BV, Meszarics R, Jeges S, Tóth Á, Szalma J. Direct resin composite restorations for fractured maxillary teeth and diastema closure: A 7 years retrospective evaluation of survival and influencing factors. Dent Mater J 2017;33:467-76.
24.	Meijering AC, Creugers NH, Roeters FJ, Mulder J. Survival of 3 types of veneer restorations in a clinical trial: A two.5-year acting evaluation. J Paring 1998;26:563-8.
25.	Frese C, Schiller P, Staehle HJ, Wolff D. Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct blended buildups: A five-yr follow-up. J Dent 2013;41:979-85.
26.	van Dijken JW, Olofsson AL, Holm C. Five year evaluation of class Iii composite resin restorations in cavities pre-treated with an oxalic- or a phosphoric acrid conditioner. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:364-71.
27.	Coelho-de-Souza FH, Gonçalves DS, Sales MP, Erhardt MC, Corrêa MB, Opdam NJ, et al. Direct anterior blended veneers in vital and not-vital teeth: A retrospective clinical evaluation. J Dent 2015;43:1330-6.
28.	Collares K, Opdam NJ, Laske M, Bronkhorst EM, Demarco FF, Correa MB, et al. Longevity of anterior blended restorations in a full general dental practice-based network. J Paring Res 2017;96:1092-9.
29.	Demirci One thousand, Yildiz E, Uysal O. Comparative clinical evaluation of unlike treatment approaches using a microfilled resin composite and a compomer in Class Iii cavities: Two-year results. Oper Dent 2008;33:7-fourteen.
xxx.	Demirci M, Tuncer S, Sancakli HS, Tekçe N, Baydemir C. Five-year clinical evaluation of a nanofilled and a nanohybrid composite in form IV cavities. Oper Paring 2018;43:261-71.
31.	van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement grade Four restorations: An upwardly to xiv years of follow-upwards. Clin Oral Investig 2010;fourteen:217-22.
32.	van de Sande FH, Moraes RR, Elias RV, Montagner AF, Rodolpho PA, Demarco FF, et al. Is composite repair suitable for anterior restorations? A long-term exercise-based clinical study. Clin Oral Investig 2018;23:2795-803.
33.	Millar BJ, Robinson Pb, Inglis AT. Clinical evaluation of an inductive hybrid composite resin over 8 years. Br Dent J 1997;182:26-30.
34.	Kubo S, Kawasaki A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater J 2011;30:374-83.
35.	Ermis RB, Temel UB, Cellik EU, Kam O. Clinical functioning of a two-step self-etch adhesive with boosted enamel carving in Course 3 cavities. Oper Paring 2010;35:147-55.
36.	Deliperi South. Clinical evaluation of nonvital tooth whitening and composite resin restorations: Five-year results. Eur J Esthet Dent 2008;three:148-59.
37.	Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations – A meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2015;31:481-95.

---

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Yashkumar Rajendra Shah
B/5/001, Rajanigandha CHS LTD, Sector-ten, Shantinagar, Nearly Swaminarayan Temple, Mira Road (East), Thane - 401 107, Maharashtra
India

Source of Back up: None, Disharmonize of Interest: None

DOI: x.4103/jcd.jcd_527_21

  [Tabular array 1], [Table 2]

peguesquittle.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.jcd.org.in/article.asp?issn=0972-0707;year=2021;volume=24;issue=5;spage=415;epage=420;aulast=Shah

Share this post