Ástvaldsdóttir Álfheiður, Dagerhamn Jessica, van Dijken Jan W V, Naimi-Akbar Aron, Sandborgh-Englund Gunilla, Tranæus Sofia, Nilsson Mikael
Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment, Stockholm, Sweden.
J Dent. 2015 Aug;43(8):934-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001. Epub 2015 May 21.
To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults.
A systematic literature search was conducted according to pre-determined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The studies selected were prospective clinical trials with a minimum follow-up time of 4 years, 40 restorations per experimental group and an annual attrition rate of less than 5%. Initially, abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and the assessment was subsequently agreed on by five reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU) standard checklist for determining the extent to which studies meet basic quality criteria.
In all, the literature search identified 4275 abstracts and 93 articles were read in full-text. There were eighteen studies which met the criteria for inclusion, eight of which were included in the analysis. There were 80 failures of restorations with a total follow-up time at risk for failure of 62,030 months. The overall incidence rate for all causes of failure was 1.55 lost restorations per 100 restoration years. The most common biological reason for failure (a total of 31 restorations) was secondary caries, with or without fracture of the restoration. The quality of the evidence was low.
In an efficacy setting, the overall survival proportion of posterior resin composite restorations is high. The major reasons for failure are secondary caries and restoration fracture which supports the importance of adequate follow-up time.
The overall survival proportion of posterior composite restorations was high, but the results cannot be extrapolated to an effectiveness setting. The importance of adequate follow-up time is supported by the finding that secondary caries often occurred after 3 years or later.
对有关成人后牙树脂复合材料修复体寿命的文献进行系统评价。
根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准进行系统的文献检索。所选研究为前瞻性临床试验,最低随访时间为4年,每个实验组有40个修复体,年损耗率低于5%。最初,由独立评估摘要和全文文章,随后由五名评审员达成一致意见。根据瑞典卫生技术评估委员会(SBU)的标准清单评估研究的方法学质量,以确定研究符合基本质量标准的程度。
文献检索共识别出4275篇摘要,93篇文章进行了全文阅读。有18项研究符合纳入标准,其中8项纳入分析。有80个修复体失败,总随访时间面临失败风险为62030个月。所有失败原因的总体发生率为每100个修复年有1.55个修复体丢失。最常见的失败生物学原因(共31个修复体)是继发龋,伴有或不伴有修复体折断。证据质量较低。
在疗效环境中,后牙树脂复合材料修复体的总体生存率较高。失败的主要原因是继发龋和修复体折断,这支持了足够随访时间的重要性。
后牙复合树脂修复体的总体生存率较高,但结果不能外推至有效性环境。继发龋常在3年或更晚发生,这一发现支持了足够随访时间的重要性。