Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis

Preben Hørsted Bindslev; B Heyde-Petersen; P Simonsen; Vibeke Baelum

doi:10.1007/s00784-005-0011-6

Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis

Preben Hørsted Bindslev, B Heyde-Petersen, P Simonsen, Vibeke Baelum

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Abstract

The aim of the present effectiveness trial was to compare the survival of restorations placed in saucer-shaped cavities to that of restorations placed in tunnel preparations. Ten operators placed a total of 85 tunnel and 97 saucer-shaped restorations. The dentinal part of the tunnel was restored by resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The remaining part of the tunnel was restored by composite resin using an adhesive technique. Composite resin was used to restore the saucer-shaped cavities. The restorations were assessed clinically and radiographically for up to 79 months, with a mean observation time of 28.8 months for tunnel, and 30.3 months for saucer-shaped restorations. The survival proportion of the tunnel restorations was 46%, and the survival proportion for the saucer-shaped restorations was 76%. A main reason for failure of the tunnel restorations was fracture of the marginal ridge (24% after 24 months). Caries development in relation to the restoration was significantly higher for tunnel restorations compared with saucer-shaped restorations (41 and 19%, respectively, after 24 months). There was no difference between the two types of restoration in marginal deterioration and caries progression in the neighboring tooth (40% after 24 months). Based on findings from the present study, it is suggested that saucer-shaped restorations should be preferred for tunnel restorations in small- and mid-sized cavities.

Original language	English
Journal	Clinical Oral Investigations
Volume	9
Issue	4
Pages (from-to)	233-8
Number of pages	6
ISSN	1432-6981
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0011-6
Publication status	Published - 2005

Keywords

Adolescent
Bicuspid
Child
Composite Resins
Dental Bonding
Dental Caries
Dental Cavity Preparation
Dental Restoration Failure
Dental Restoration, Permanent
Dentin
Dentin-Bonding Agents
Disease Progression
Follow-Up Studies
Glass Ionomer Cements
Humans
Marginal Adaptation (Dentistry)
Molar
Resin Cements
Silicon Dioxide
Surface Properties
Survival Analysis
Zirconium

Access to Document

10.1007/s00784-005-0011-6

Cite this

@article{d5aea2a0b62511dd99a9000ea68e967b,

title = "Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis",

abstract = "The aim of the present effectiveness trial was to compare the survival of restorations placed in saucer-shaped cavities to that of restorations placed in tunnel preparations. Ten operators placed a total of 85 tunnel and 97 saucer-shaped restorations. The dentinal part of the tunnel was restored by resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The remaining part of the tunnel was restored by composite resin using an adhesive technique. Composite resin was used to restore the saucer-shaped cavities. The restorations were assessed clinically and radiographically for up to 79 months, with a mean observation time of 28.8 months for tunnel, and 30.3 months for saucer-shaped restorations. The survival proportion of the tunnel restorations was 46%, and the survival proportion for the saucer-shaped restorations was 76%. A main reason for failure of the tunnel restorations was fracture of the marginal ridge (24% after 24 months). Caries development in relation to the restoration was significantly higher for tunnel restorations compared with saucer-shaped restorations (41 and 19%, respectively, after 24 months). There was no difference between the two types of restoration in marginal deterioration and caries progression in the neighboring tooth (40% after 24 months). Based on findings from the present study, it is suggested that saucer-shaped restorations should be preferred for tunnel restorations in small- and mid-sized cavities.",

keywords = "Adolescent, Bicuspid, Child, Composite Resins, Dental Bonding, Dental Caries, Dental Cavity Preparation, Dental Restoration Failure, Dental Restoration, Permanent, Dentin, Dentin-Bonding Agents, Disease Progression, Follow-Up Studies, Glass Ionomer Cements, Humans, Marginal Adaptation (Dentistry), Molar, Resin Cements, Silicon Dioxide, Surface Properties, Survival Analysis, Zirconium",

author = "Bindslev, {Preben H{\o}rsted} and B Heyde-Petersen and P Simonsen and Vibeke Baelum",

year = "2005",

doi = "10.1007/s00784-005-0011-6",

language = "English",

volume = "9",

pages = "233--8",

journal = "Clinical Oral Investigations",

issn = "1432-6981",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis

AU - Bindslev, Preben Hørsted

AU - Heyde-Petersen, B

AU - Simonsen, P

AU - Baelum, Vibeke

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - The aim of the present effectiveness trial was to compare the survival of restorations placed in saucer-shaped cavities to that of restorations placed in tunnel preparations. Ten operators placed a total of 85 tunnel and 97 saucer-shaped restorations. The dentinal part of the tunnel was restored by resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The remaining part of the tunnel was restored by composite resin using an adhesive technique. Composite resin was used to restore the saucer-shaped cavities. The restorations were assessed clinically and radiographically for up to 79 months, with a mean observation time of 28.8 months for tunnel, and 30.3 months for saucer-shaped restorations. The survival proportion of the tunnel restorations was 46%, and the survival proportion for the saucer-shaped restorations was 76%. A main reason for failure of the tunnel restorations was fracture of the marginal ridge (24% after 24 months). Caries development in relation to the restoration was significantly higher for tunnel restorations compared with saucer-shaped restorations (41 and 19%, respectively, after 24 months). There was no difference between the two types of restoration in marginal deterioration and caries progression in the neighboring tooth (40% after 24 months). Based on findings from the present study, it is suggested that saucer-shaped restorations should be preferred for tunnel restorations in small- and mid-sized cavities.

AB - The aim of the present effectiveness trial was to compare the survival of restorations placed in saucer-shaped cavities to that of restorations placed in tunnel preparations. Ten operators placed a total of 85 tunnel and 97 saucer-shaped restorations. The dentinal part of the tunnel was restored by resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The remaining part of the tunnel was restored by composite resin using an adhesive technique. Composite resin was used to restore the saucer-shaped cavities. The restorations were assessed clinically and radiographically for up to 79 months, with a mean observation time of 28.8 months for tunnel, and 30.3 months for saucer-shaped restorations. The survival proportion of the tunnel restorations was 46%, and the survival proportion for the saucer-shaped restorations was 76%. A main reason for failure of the tunnel restorations was fracture of the marginal ridge (24% after 24 months). Caries development in relation to the restoration was significantly higher for tunnel restorations compared with saucer-shaped restorations (41 and 19%, respectively, after 24 months). There was no difference between the two types of restoration in marginal deterioration and caries progression in the neighboring tooth (40% after 24 months). Based on findings from the present study, it is suggested that saucer-shaped restorations should be preferred for tunnel restorations in small- and mid-sized cavities.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Bicuspid

KW - Child

KW - Composite Resins

KW - Dental Bonding

KW - Dental Caries

KW - Dental Cavity Preparation

KW - Dental Restoration Failure

KW - Dental Restoration, Permanent

KW - Dentin

KW - Dentin-Bonding Agents

KW - Disease Progression

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Glass Ionomer Cements

KW - Humans

KW - Marginal Adaptation (Dentistry)

KW - Molar

KW - Resin Cements

KW - Silicon Dioxide

KW - Surface Properties

KW - Survival Analysis

KW - Zirconium

U2 - 10.1007/s00784-005-0011-6

DO - 10.1007/s00784-005-0011-6

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 16133496

SN - 1432-6981

VL - 9

SP - 233

EP - 238

JO - Clinical Oral Investigations

JF - Clinical Oral Investigations

IS - 4

ER -

Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this