1 Department of Dentistry, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
J Dent Res. 2019 Apr;98(4):414-422. doi: 10.1177/0022034519827566. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
To improve patient dental care, it is necessary to identify possible risk factors for the failing of restorations. This practice-based cohort study investigated the performance and influence of possible risk factors at the level of the practice, patient, tooth, and restoration on survival of direct class II restorations. Electronic patient files from 11 Dutch general practices were collected, and 31,472 restorations placed between January 2015 and October 2017 were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier statistics were performed; annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated; and variables were assessed by multivariable Cox regression analysis. The observation time of restorations varied from 0 to 2.7 y, resulting in a mean AFR of 7.8% at 2 y. However, wide variation in AFRs existed among the operators, varying between 3.6% and 11.4%. A wide range of patient-related variables is related to a high risk for reintervention: patient age (elderly: hazard ratio [HR], 1.372), general health (medically compromised: HR, 1.478), periodontal status (periodontal problems: HR, 1.207), caries risk and risk for parafunctional habits (high: HR, 1.687), restorations in molar teeth (HR, 1.383), restorations placed in endodontically treated teeth (HR, 1.890), and multisurface restorations (≥4 surfaces: HR, 1.345). Restorations placed due to fracture were more prone to fail than restorations placed due to caries. When patient-related risk factors were excluded, remaining risk factors considerably changed in their effect and significance: the effect of operator, age of the patient, and endodontic treatment increased; the effect of the diagnosis decreased; and the socioeconomic status became significant (high: HR, 0.873). This study demonstrated that a wide variation of risk factors on the practice, patient, and tooth levels influences the survival of class II restorations. To provide personalized dental care, it is important to identify and record potential risk factors. Therefore, we recommend further clinical studies to include these patient risk factors in data collection and analysis.
为了改善患者的口腔护理,有必要确定修复体失败的可能风险因素。本基于实践的队列研究调查了在实践、患者、牙齿和修复体水平上可能的风险因素对直接 II 类修复体的生存情况的影响。收集了 11 家荷兰普通诊所的电子患者档案,并分析了 2015 年 1 月至 2017 年 10 月间放置的 31472 个修复体。进行了 Kaplan-Meier 统计分析;计算了年失败率(AFR);并通过多变量 Cox 回归分析评估了变量。修复体的观察时间从 0 到 2.7 年不等,导致 2 年时的平均 AFR 为 7.8%。然而,操作人员之间的 AFR 差异很大,从 3.6%到 11.4%不等。广泛的患者相关变量与再次干预的高风险相关:患者年龄(老年人:危险比 [HR],1.372)、一般健康状况(身体状况不佳:HR,1.478)、牙周状况(牙周问题:HR,1.207)、龋齿风险和功能紊乱习惯风险(高:HR,1.687)、磨牙的修复体(HR,1.383)、牙髓治疗牙上的修复体(HR,1.890)和多表面修复体(≥4 个表面:HR,1.345)。因折裂而放置的修复体比因龋齿而放置的修复体更容易失败。当排除患者相关风险因素后,剩余的风险因素在其影响和意义上发生了很大的变化:操作人员、患者年龄和牙髓治疗的影响增加;诊断的影响降低;社会经济地位变得显著(高:HR,0.873)。本研究表明,在实践、患者和牙齿水平上存在广泛的风险因素,影响 II 类修复体的生存情况。为了提供个性化的口腔护理,重要的是识别和记录潜在的风险因素。因此,我们建议进一步的临床研究将这些患者风险因素纳入数据收集和分析。