Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Needs for re-intervention on restored teeth in adults: a practice-based study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Evaluate the need for re-intervention on dental coronal restorations in adults seen in a network of general dental practitioners (ReCOL). 

Materials and methods

This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study involved 40 practitioners and 400 patients. Coronal restoration failures (needing re-intervention for unsatisfactory outcomes) were assessed with a simplified rating scale of seven criteria from the FDI World Dental Federation. The oral health status, the risk factors, and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 were also examined. Previous restoration characteristics (extent, technique, material) were analyzed according to the need for re-intervention (yes/no), the age group, and the risk profile. Qualitative variables were compared between “re-intervention” and “no re-intervention” group using Fisher exact test.

Results

The need for re-intervention was estimated at 74% (95% CI: 70; 79); it increased with age (49 to 90%), unfavorable risk profile (82 vs. 62%), and extent of the filling (32, 39, 44, and 44% on 1, 2, 3 surfaces, and crowns, respectively). More posterior than anterior teeth were restored (median per patient: 6 vs. 1) or needed re-intervention (median per patient: 1 vs. 0).

Conclusions

The needs for re-intervention in adults are still high within a context of ever-changing materials and techniques, simplified and rationalized decision-makings, and demands for patient involvement.

Clinical relevance

Meeting these needs requires the following: (i) consensus definitions and assessment methods for “failure” and (ii) reliable feedbacks on materials, procedures, and satisfaction. Building large and detailed databases fed by networks of motivated practitioners will help analyzing complex success/failure data by artificial intelligence and guiding treatment and research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heintze SD, Ilie N, Hickel R et al (2017) Laboratory mechanical parameters of composite resins and their relation to fractures and wear in clinical trials-a systematic review. Dent Mater 33:e101–e114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson N, Lynch C, Brunton P et al (2016) Criteria for the replacement of restorations: Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section. Oper Dent 41:S48–S57. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-058-O

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Martignon S, Pitts NB, Goffin G et al (2019) CariesCare practice guide: consensus on evidence into practice. Br Dent J 227:353–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0678-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gordan VV, Riley JL, Rindal DB et al (2015) Repair or replacement of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 146:895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2015.05.017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM et al (2019) Risk factors for dental restoration survival: a practice-based study. J Dent Res 98:414–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034519827566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM et al (2019) The differences between three performance measures on dental restorations, clinical success, survival and failure: a matter of perspective. Dent Mater 35:1506–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hickel R, Roulet J-F, Bayne S et al (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 11:5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0095-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ et al (2019) Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet 394:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BAC (2007) A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 23:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM et al (2016) Ten-year survival of class II restorations placed by general practitioners. JDR Clin Trans Res 1:292–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084416663192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM et al (2016) Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice based research network. J Dent 46:12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Collares K, Opdam NJM, Laske M et al (2017) Longevity of anterior composite restorations in a general dental practice-based network. J Dent Res 96:1092–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517717681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Collares K, Correa MB, Bronkhorst EM et al (2018) A practice based longevity study on single-unit crowns. J Dent 74:43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eltahlah D, Lynch CD, Chadwick BL et al (2018) An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. J Dent 72:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Raedel M, Hartmann A, Priess H-W et al (2017) Re-interventions after restoring teeth—mining an insurance database. J Dent 57:14–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4:e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwendicke F, Opdam N (2018) Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: design, conduct, analysis. Dent Mater 34:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS et al (2011) Age of failed restorations: a deceptive longevity parameter. J Dent 39:225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mjör IA (2007) Practice-based dental research. J Oral Rehabil 34:913–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01776.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Canceill T, Monsarrat P, Faure-Clement E et al (2021) Dental Practice-Based Research Networks (D-PBRN) worldwide: a scoping review. J Dent 104:103523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gilbert GH, Williams OD, Rindal DB et al (2008) The creation and development of the dental practice-based research network. J Am Dent Assoc 139:74–81. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Garbin Neumann D, Quiñonez C (2014) A comparative analysis of oral health care systems in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Brazil. NCOHR Working Papers Series 1:2. 1–18

  23. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M et al (2010) FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Invest 14:349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ismail AI, Pitts NB, Tellez M (2015) The International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMSTM) An Example of a Caries Management Pathway. BMC Oral Health 15:S9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-15-S1-S9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Löe H, Silness J (1963) Periodontal Disease in Pregnancy I. Prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 21:533–551. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356309011240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Young DA, Goolsby SP, Rechmann P (2019) Caries Management by Risk Assessment - Guidelines to improve caries risk level assigments. CDA J 47:49–55

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bartlett D, Ganss C, Lussi A (2008) Basic Erosive Wear Examination (BEWE): a new scoring system for scientific and clinical needs. Clin Oral Invest 12:65–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0181-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Slade GD (1997) Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 25:284–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Beck F, Lettner S, Graf A et al (2015) Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996–2015): a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Dent Mater 31:958–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH et al (2015) Anterior composite restorations: a systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater 31:1214–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, dos Santos GO (2015) Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 43:1043–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Palotie U, Eronen AK, Vehkalahti K, Vehkalahti MM (2017) Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-olds attending public dental service - a 13-year observation. J Dent 62:13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.05.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Raedel M, Hartmann A, Bohm S et al (2017) Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces—a massive data analysis. Clin Oral Invest 21:2819–2825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2084-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hartigan JA, Kleiner B (1984) A mosaic of television ratings. Am Stat 38:32–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2683556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Friendly M (1994) Mosaic displays for multi-way contingency tables. J Am Stat Assoc 89:190–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1994.10476460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed Nov 2020

  37. Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R (2015) Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations—a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 31:481–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS et al (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28:87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Astvaldsdóttir A, Dagerhamn J, Van Dijken J et al (2015) Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – a systematic review. J Dent 43:934–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McCracken MS, Gordan VV, Litaker MS et al (2013) A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 144:583–593. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0169

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E et al (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res 93:943–949. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans M-CDNJM (2010) 12-year Survival of Composite vs. Amalgam Restorations. J Dent Res 89:1063–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510376071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G, Blunck U et al (2016) Directly placed restorative materials: review and network meta-analysis. J Dent Res 95:613–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516631285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FBW, Braga MM et al (2016) Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 95:985–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516652848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Abduo J, Sambrook RJ (2018) Longevity of ceramic onlays: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent 30:193–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Anusavice KJ (2012) Standardizing failure, success, and survival decisions in clinical studies of ceramic and metal–ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater 28:102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB (2007) Dental caries. Lancet 369:51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60031-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. van de Sande F, Collares K, Correa M et al (2016) Restoration survival: revisiting patients’ risk factors through a systematic literature review. Oper Dent 41:S7–S26. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-120-LIT

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bidra AS, Daubert DM, Garcia LT et al (2016) A systematic review of recall regimen and maintenance regimen of patients with dental restorations. Part 1: Tooth-Borne Restorations: Recall and Maintenance of Tooth-Borne Restorations. J Prosthodont 25:S2–S15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nishi M, Harding M, Kelleher V et al (2017) Knowledge of caries risk factors/indicators among Japanese and Irish adult patients with different socio-economic profiles: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 17:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0345-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Signori C, Laske M, Bronkhorst EM et al (2019) Impact of individual-risk factors on caries treatment performed by general dental practitioners. J Dent 81:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.12.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Oudkerk J, Eldafrawy M, Bekaert S et al (2020) The one-step no-prep approach for full-mouth rehabilitation of worn dentition using PICN CAD-CAM restorations: 2-yr results of a prospective clinical study. J Dent 92:103245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Klinke T, Daboul A, Schwahn C et al (2016) Dental practitioner recruitment for a randomized clinical trial in the field to evaluate the performance of a new glass ionomer restoration material. Trials 17:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1198-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. DeRouen TA, Hujoel P, Leroux B et al (2008) Preparing practicing dentists to engage in practice-based research. J Am Dent Assoc 139:339–345. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0164

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J et al (2018) The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 68:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Blum IR, Lynch CD, CD, Wilson NHf, (2014) Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 6:81–87. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S53461

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR (2002) Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent 27:488–492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Elisa Letellier and Hélène Lozano (Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France) for their contribution to the conduct and monitoring of the study. They also thank Jean Iwaz (Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France) for the edition of the final drafts of the article. The authors thank for their collaboration as investigators the following colleagues: Amzallag-Guidoni Valérie, Atlan Anthony, Bondil Xavier, Chabanne Anaïs, Chesneau Jonathan, Chomette Gaëlle, Cohen-Boulakia Laura, Dechaux Jérémie, Delarge Dionis Nathalie, Drossart Maxime, Drouhet Thibault, Dudouit Laurianne, Dutour François-Marie, Franchi Claire, Gautherot Stéphanie, Gerentes Philippe, Girschig-Alle Isabelle, Guerrieri Aurélia, Janin Arnaud, Janisset-Masse Nathalie, Kaprielian Nicolas, Loiseau Anne-Claire, Lossi Justine, Marniquet Solène, Mesgouez-Menez Catherine, Mifsud Stéphanie, Minassian Harmik, Moussally Christian, My Marie-Anne, Perier Nicolas, Pieaud Jérôme, Pochelu Florian, Reneau Magali, Robbiani Éric, Sauvagnac Alix, Tixier Jacques, Tournadre Camille, and Vinter Céline.

Funding

This study was funded by Hospices Civils de Lyon (Lyon, France), Dentsply Sirona (Versailles, France), and Procter & Gamble (France, Asnières-sur-Seine).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Médecine Bucco-Dentaire, Hôpital Charles Foix, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Ivry sur Seine, France

    Franck Decup

  2. Université de Paris, UR 2496, Pathologies, Imagerie Et Biothérapie Orofaciales, Montrouge, France

    Franck Decup

  3. Université de Lyon, Lyon, France

    Emmanuelle Dantony, Charlène Chevalier, Alexandra David, Valentin Garyga, Marie Tohmé, Delphine Maucort-Boulch & Brigitte Grosgogeat

  4. Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France

    Emmanuelle Dantony, Valentin Garyga, Marie Tohmé & Delphine Maucort-Boulch

  5. Service de Biostatistique-Bioinformatique, Pôle Santé Publique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France

    Emmanuelle Dantony & Delphine Maucort-Boulch

  6. Équipe Biostatistique-Santé, Laboratoire de Biométrie Et Biologie Évolutive, CNRS UMR 5558, Villeurbanne, France

    Emmanuelle Dantony, François Gueyffier, Patrice Nony & Delphine Maucort-Boulch

  7. Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France

    Charlène Chevalier, Alexandra David, François Gueyffier, Patrice Nony & Brigitte Grosgogeat

  8. Service d’odontologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France

    Alexandra David, Valentin Garyga, Marie Tohmé & Brigitte Grosgogeat

  9. Laboratoire Des Multimatériaux Et Des Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Lyon, France

    Charlène Chevalier, Alexandra David & Brigitte Grosgogeat

  10. Hôpital Cardiologique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Bron, France

    François Gueyffier & Patrice Nony

  11. Faculté d’odontologie, 11 rue Guillaume Paradin, 69008, Lyon, France

    Charlène Chevalier, Alexandra David, Valentin Garyga, Marie Tohmé & Brigitte Grosgogeat

Authors
  1. Franck Decup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuelle Dantony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charlène Chevalier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexandra David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valentin Garyga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marie Tohmé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. François Gueyffier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Patrice Nony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Delphine Maucort-Boulch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Brigitte Grosgogeat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brigitte Grosgogeat.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was promoted by Hospices Civils de Lyon (Lyon, France). The protocol of the study was approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) Île-de-France III (3660-NI 01/29/2019) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT03854526).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Decup, F., Dantony, E., Chevalier, C. et al. Needs for re-intervention on restored teeth in adults: a practice-based study. Clin Oral Invest 26, 789–801 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04058-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04058-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation