Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Dent Mater. 2015 Oct;31(10):1214-24. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.07.005. Epub 2015 Aug 21.
In this study the literature was systematically reviewed to investigate the clinical longevity of anterior composite restorations.
Clinical studies investigating the survival of anterior light-cured composite restorations with at least three years of follow-up were screened and main reasons associated with restoration failure were registered.
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched without restriction on date or language. Reference lists of eligible studies were hand-searched. The grey literature search was not made systematically.
Two reviewers screened titles and/or abstracts of 2273 unique studies. In total, 41 studies were selected for full-text reading, from which 17 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The included studies evaluated the clinical performance of Class III and/or IV restorations (10 studies), which were placed due to caries, fracture, or replaced old restorations; veneers and full-coverage restorations placed for aesthetic reasons (five studies); and restorations in worn teeth (two studies). Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated for each study.
In total, 1821 restorations were evaluated and the total failure rate was 24.1%. AFRs varied from 0 to 4.1% and survival rates varied from 53.4% to 100%. Class III restorations generally had lower AFRs than the other restorations. Few studies addressed factors associated with failure, which included adhesive technique, composite resin, retreatment risk, and time required to build-up the restoration. Fracture of tooth/restoration was the most common reason for failure, whereas failures related to aesthetic qualities (color, anatomical form, surface stain) were more frequent when restorations were placed for aesthetic reasons.
本研究通过系统回顾文献,调查了前牙复合树脂修复体的临床耐久性。
筛选了调查至少 3 年随访的前牙光固化复合树脂修复体存活率的临床研究,并记录了与修复失败相关的主要原因。
在没有时间或语言限制的情况下,在 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane 数据库中进行了检索。对合格研究的参考文献进行了手工检索。没有系统地进行灰色文献检索。
两名审查员筛选了 2273 篇独特研究的标题和/或摘要。共有 41 项研究被选入全文阅读,其中 17 项被纳入定性综合分析。这些纳入的研究评估了 III 类和/或 IV 类修复体(10 项研究)的临床性能,这些修复体是由于龋齿、折裂或替换旧修复体而放置的;为了美观而放置的贴面和全冠修复体(5 项研究);以及磨耗牙的修复体(2 项研究)。为每项研究计算了年度失败率(AFR)。
共评估了 1821 个修复体,总失败率为 24.1%。AFR 从 0 到 4.1%不等,存活率从 53.4%到 100%不等。III 类修复体的 AFR 一般低于其他修复体。很少有研究涉及与失败相关的因素,包括粘结技术、复合树脂、再治疗风险以及修复体堆积所需的时间。牙/修复体折裂是失败的最常见原因,而当修复体因美观原因放置时,与美观质量(颜色、解剖形态、表面染色)相关的失败更为常见。