Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 1495–1501 | Cite as

Association of indirect restorations with past caries history and present need for restorative treatment in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966

  • Anne Laajala
  • Pasi Karhatsu
  • Paula Pesonen
  • Marja-Liisa Laitala
  • Ritva Näpänkangas
  • Aune Raustia
  • Vuokko Anttonen
Original Article



The objective of this study is to examine the prevalence of indirect restorations and their association with past caries history and present need for restorative treatment among adults in Northern Finland.

Materials and methods

The study population was a subsample of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (n = 1961). The oral examinations were performed in 2012–2013. Indirect restorations (inlays/onlays and single crowns) were recorded tooth wise. Caries history was described with the sum of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMF). Caries was assessed using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS). The score of 4 was used as the cut off point for visible decay. Present need for restorative treatment was calculated by summing the decayed (D) and fractured (Fr) teeth. Need for restorative treatment was dichotomized to low [(D + Fr) ≤ 1] and high [(D + Fr) > 1].


Altogether, 7.8% of the study population had indirect restorations. The prevalence of indirect restorations did not differ within DMF (p = 0.925), but it was higher among the subjects with a low need for restorative treatment (p < 0.001).


Indirect restorations were rare in the adult population and found mainly among the subjects with a low need for restorative treatment.

Clinical relevance

The results of the study can encourage dentists to consider more often indirect restorations for subjects with a need for restorative treatment.


Dental restoration Dental caries NFBC1966 Restorative treatment ICDAS DMF index 



We thank the late professor Paula Rantakallio (launch of NFBC1966), the participants in the 46y study, and the NFBC project center. We also thank Mr. Jari Päkkilä for designing the software (electronic patient file) for this cohort study.


NFBC1966 has received financial support from the University of Oulu (Grant no. 24000692), Oulu University Hospital (Grant no. 24301140), and the European Regional Development Fund (Grant no. 539/2010 A31592).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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


  1. 1.
    Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W (2015) Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res 94(5):650–658. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fejerskov O, Kidd E (2008) Pathology of dental caries. In: Fejersko O, Nyvad B, Kidd E (eds) Dental caries, 2nd edn. Blackwell Munksgaard, Oxford, p 20Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB (2007) Dental caries. Lancet 369(9555):51–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89(10):1063–1067. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forss H, Widström E (2009) Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand 62(2):82–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alvanforoush N, Palamara J, Wong R, Burrow MF (2016) A comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995–2005 and 2006–2016 periods. Aust Dent J.
  7. 7.
    Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U et al (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93(10):943–949. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, Amaya A, Sen A, Hasson H, Pitts NB (2007) The international caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35(3):170–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) Committee (2005) Rationale and evidence for the international caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS II). Accessed 26 Oct 2016
  10. 10.
    Hopp CD, Land MF (2013) Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 5:21–32. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chrepa V, Konstantinidis I, Kotsakis GA, Mitsias ME (2014) The survival of indirect composite resin onlays for the restoration of root filled teeth: a retrospective medium-term study. Int Endod J 47(10):967–973. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shillingburg HT, Staher DA, Wilson EL, Cain JR, Mitchell DC, Blanco LJ et al (2012) Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics, 4th edn. Quintessence Publishing Co, Chicago, p 197Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fransson H, Dawson VS, Frisk F, Bjorndal L, EndoReCo KT (2016) Survival of root-filled teeth in the Swedish adult population. J Endod 42(2):216–220. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sequeira-Byron P, Fedorowicz Z, Carter B, Nasser M, Alrowaili EF (2015) Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. The Cochrane Database Syst Rev (9):CD009109.
  15. 15.
    Afrashtehfar KI, Emami E, Ahmadi M, Eilayyan O, Abi-Nader S, Tamimi F (2017) Failure rate of single-unit restorations on posterior vital teeth: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 117(3):353.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rantakallio P (1988) The longitudinal study of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort of 1966. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2(1):59–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alaraudanjoki V, Laitala ML, Tjaderhane L, Pesonen P, Lussi A, Anttonen V (2016) Association of erosive tooth wear and dental caries in Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966—an epidemiological cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health, 17(1), x.
  18. 18.
    FDI World Dental Federation (2014) FDI policy statement on dental amalgam and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Int Dent J 64(6):295–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z (2014) Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD005620.
  20. 20.
    van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Rodolpho PA, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Cenci MS (2013) Patient risk factors’ influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res 92(7 Suppl):83S. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vahanikkila H, Kakilehto T, Pihlaja J, Pakkila J, Tjaderhane L, Suni J et al (2014) A data-based study on survival of permanent molar restorations in adolescents. Acta Odontol Scand 72(5):380–385. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE (2015) All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs): a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 31(6):603–623. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nejatidanesh F, Moradpoor H, Savabi O (2016) Clinical outcomes of zirconia-based implant- and tooth-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Investig 20(1):169–178. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Napankangas R, Pihlaja J, Raustia A (2015) Outcome of zirconia single crowns made by predoctoral dental students: a clinical retrospective study after 2 to 6 years of clinical service. J Prosthet Dent 113(4):289–294. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FB, Braga MM, Sesma N, Ozcan M (2016) Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 95(9):985–994. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP (2013) Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 29(12):1209–1218. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park JM, Hong YS, Park EJ, Heo SJ, Oh N (2016) Clinical evaluations of cast gold alloy, machinable zirconia, and semiprecious alloy crowns: a multicenter study. J Prosthet Dent 115(6):684–691. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chaar MS, Kern M (2015) Five-year clinical outcome of posterior zirconia ceramic inlay-retained FDPs with a modified design. J Dent 43(12):1411–1415. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pol CW, Kalk W (2011) A systematic review of ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: an update. Int J Prosthodont 24(6):566–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heinikainen M, Vehkalahti M, Murtomaa H (2002) Re-treatment decisions for failed posterior fillings by Finnish general practitioners. Community Dent Health 19(2):98–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Napankangas R, Salonen MA, Raustia AM (2001) Treatment need for fixed metal ceramic bridge prostheses in patients treated by dental students in 1984–1996. J Oral Rehab 28(12):1101–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eckerbom M, Magnusson T, Martinsson T (1991) Prevalence of apical periodontitis, crowned teeth and teeth with posts in a Swedish population. Endod Dent Traumatol 7(5):214–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tanner T, Kamppi A, Pakkila J, Patinen P, Rosberg J, Karjalainen K et al (2013) Prevalence and polarization of dental caries among young, healthy adults: cross-sectional epidemiological study. Acta Odontol Scand 71(6):1436–1442. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Larmas M (2010) Has dental caries prevalence some connection with caries index values in adults? Caries Res 44(1):81–84. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zitzmann NU, Hagmann E, Weiger R (2007) What is the prevalence of various types of prosthetic dental restorations in Europe? Clin Oral Implants Res, 18 Suppl 3, 20–33Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Napankangas R, Haikola B, Oikarinen K, Soderholm AL, Remes-Lyly T, Sipila K (2011) Prevalence of single crowns and fixed partial dentures in elderly citizens in the southern and northern parts of Finland. J Oral Rehab 38(5):328–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Pediatric Dentistry, Research Unit of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Medical Research Center, OuluOulu University Hospital and University of OuluOuluFinland
  3. 3.Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Stomatognathic Physiology, Research Unit of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  4. 4.Research Unit of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations