| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH REPORTS |
1 University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics, 1011 N. University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078, USA;
2 University of Iowa, Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry;
3 University of Iowa, Department of Biostatistics;
4 University of North Carolina, Department of Dental Ecology;
5 University of Iowa, Department of Operative Dentistry;
6 University of Iowa, Department of General Internal Medicine; and
7 University of Iowa, Public Policy Center;
* corresponding author, jkolker{at}umich.edu
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
KEY WORDS: dental amalgam • crowns • longitudinal study • survival analysis • treatment outcome
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
While several studies have evaluated the clinical performance of large amalgams and crowns, there remains uncertainty about which procedure provides the best long-term outcome for a structurally compromised tooth (Leempoel et al., 1985; Walton et al., 1986; Robbins and Summitt, 1988; Letzel et al., 1989; Hawthorne and Smales, 1997; Martin and Bader, 1997; Smales and Hawthorne, 1997; Plasmans et al., 1998; Smales, 1991). Published studies are often difficult to compare, since they rarely compare the two procedures in the same study and can vary in protocol, methods, and the definition of outcome measures. This inadequate evidence base has contributed to variations in the treatment planning for these two procedures (Bailit and Clive, 1981; Elderton and Nuttall, 1983; Grembowski et al., 1990a,b; Shugars and Bader, 1992; Bader et al., 1993; Bader and Shugars, 1993, 1995; Shugars et al., 1997).
Several recent studies have used administrative data to evaluate the survival of large amalgam and crown restorations. In one study, teeth with a crown were significantly more likely to ‘survive’ over time compared with teeth restored with a large amalgam (Smales and Hawthorne, 1997). In another study, about 70% of four- and five-surface amalgams were ‘successful’ (needing no further treatment or only an additional one- or two-surface restoration) after 5 yrs, with 10–15% experiencing a catastrophic failure (i.e., endodontic treatment or extraction) (Martin and Bader, 1997). In contrast, 84% of crowns were successful, with about 10% having a catastrophic procedure.
In a previous study, we followed teeth restored with a large amalgam or a crown for 5 and 10 yrs in routine patients to gain an understanding of the type of treatment received (Kolker et al., 2004). We created Treatment Outcome Trees as a descriptive approach to evaluate the natural history of teeth treated with a large amalgam or crown. Sixty-four percent of large amalgams and 22% of crowns later received further treatment over the ensuing 10 yrs. Even with these descriptive analyses, however, we were unable to determine how quickly the teeth needed subsequent treatment, the complexity of the procedures received, or the factors relating to the type of treatment received. The purpose of this study was to follow and compare large amalgams and crowns, and determine (a) the survival rates for teeth with these two types of restorations and (b) factors associated with better outcomes.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
All permanent posterior teeth were included except the following: (1) third molars, (2) teeth identified as having received root canal therapy prior to the placement of the large amalgam or crown restoration, or (3) teeth that served as a bridge abutment. If a patient had more than one target tooth, we randomly selected one tooth for analysis, to avoid related observations.
Information from every dental visit related to the ‘target teeth’ during the ten-year period was collected. Survival analyses were completed, and related factors were modeled for two different definitions of survival: (Model 1) receipt of no treatment, and (Model 2) receipt of no catastrophic treatment (not having extraction or root canal procedures). We used the Kaplan-Meier Product Limit method to estimate survival probability curves for each level of a covariate. We used Log-Rank tests to assess the association between potential risk factors and survival time. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to model the association between exposure (restoration type) and time with no treatment and no catastrophic treatment while controlling for confounding risk factors (covariates).
We conducted both forward and backward step-wise approaches to create the most parsimonious models. We performed forward step-wise modeling by placing each variable that had a log-rank p < 0.20 individually into the proportional hazards model. The variable with the smallest p-value was first put into a proportional hazards model with restoration type, and then the remaining variables were evaluated individually. The variable that displayed the lowest p-value was then included in the model. This process was repeated until no additional variable maintained a p < 0.05.
We performed backward step-wise modeling by including all the variables with a log-rank p < 0.20 in the proportional hazards model. The variable with the largest p-value exceeding the 0.05 level was dropped, and a proportional hazards model with the remaining variables was created. From this second model, the variable with the highest p > 0.50 was dropped, and a reduced proportional hazards model was created. We placed the first dropped variable back into the model to verify its exclusion. This process was followed until all variables with a p > 0.05 were excluded from the model.
Possible interaction terms were then tested between the restoration type and the other covariates that remained in the model. The proportional hazards assumption was tested by the inclusion of covariates by log-time interaction terms.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). Crowns were significantly more likely to have survived with no treatment than were large amalgams. Large amalgams had a survival estimate of 0.52 for receipt of no treatment after 5 yrs (48% of large amalgams received some treatment after 5 yrs). The survival estimate for large amalgams receiving no treatment after 10 yrs was 0.46. This compares with a survival estimate of 0.88 for crowns receiving no treatment at 5 yrs and 0.77 at 10 yrs. The survival estimates for large amalgams receiving no catastrophic treatment was 0.87 after 5 yrs and 0.78 after 10 yrs, compared with 0.95 for crowns at 5 yrs and 0.87 at 10 yrs.
|
), which became candidate predictors in survival modeling. Variables that had a p-value > 0.20 (and therefore were not included in the modeling) were: tooth type (molar vs. premolar), diabetes, patient-reported gum disease, grinding or clenching, interest in keeping teeth, number of pins, type of provider, and presence of a prior restoration.
The final models for time to some treatment and time to catastrophic treatment, along with the parameter estimates (ß) and Hazard ratios, were determined (Table 2). Both forward and backward approaches yielded the same final models. The final Model 1 for survival with no treatment included the covariates restoration type, proximal contacts, and arch type. These same variables plus gender were included in the final Model 2, describing survival with no catastrophic treatment. When interactions were evaluated, only the interaction between restoration type and arch type was significant in both models. The distribution of the sample among the 4 categories specified by restoration type and arch type and the hazard ratios (adjusted for other predictors) were calculated (Table 3). Variables showed no evidence of a non-proportional hazards time dependency.
|
|
). The interaction pattern for restoration type and arch type was consistent in direction. Mandibular large amalgams experienced any treatment at a rate over 6 times (1/0.16 = 6.25) that of maxillary crowns, adjusted for the number of proximal contacts. Additionally, teeth without proximal contacts had any treatment at nearly 2 times the rate of teeth with one or two proximal contacts.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the receipt of no treatment were created (Fig., panel A). The curves are shown for restoration type in each arch. After 10 yrs, 83% of maxillary crowns survived with no treatment, as did 71% of mandibular crowns. Large amalgams showed a wider separation of survival estimates based on arch type at 5 yrs (0.44 for maxillary and 0.51 for mandibular) than at 10 yrs (0.63 and 0.65, respectively).
|
). For no catastrophic treatment, the interaction between restoration type and arch type differed in magnitude and had a reversal of effect. Maxillary crowns were more likely to survive with no catastrophic treatment than were mandibular crowns; however, mandibular large amalgams were more likely to survive with no catastrophic treatment than were maxillary large amalgams. With adjustment for number of proximal contacts and gender, mandibular large amalgams experienced catastrophic treatment at a rate 2 (1/0.48 = 2.08) times that of maxillary crowns. Teeth without proximal contacts received catastrophic treatment at twice the rate of teeth with one or two proximal contacts, and men experienced catastrophic treatment at a rate 1.4 (1/0.7 = 1.42) times that of women. At 10 yrs, 90% of maxillary crown teeth survived with no catastrophic treatment, compared with 83% of mandibular crowns. The catastrophic treatment survival estimates for large amalgams by arch were quite similar at 5 yrs (0.81 for maxillary and 0.83 for mandibular), while at 10 yrs, the survival estimates varied more (0.68 for maxillary, 0.76 for mandibular) (Fig., Panel B). |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Many of our findings were very similar to those of Martin and Bader (1997); however, our survival time for teeth with large amalgams was shorter. At 5 yrs, we found that 52% of large amalgam teeth survived with no treatment, while they found that 62% of four-surface amalgams and 55% of five-surface amalgams survived (Martin and Bader, 1997). Our findings for crowns were higher, with 88% of crowns surviving with no treatment, compared with 80% of crowns in their study. Some of these differences may be due to differences in practice settings (i.e., managed care group vs. dental school).
In the literature on outcomes for large amalgams and crowns, the number of proximal contacts has not been reported. However, in a study of endodontically treated teeth, teeth with two proximal contacts had the best survival estimates (Aquilino and Caplan, 2002). The same investigative team found that teeth with 0 or 1 proximal contact at endodontic access were lost three times as often as teeth with two proximal contacts (Caplan and Weintraub, 1997; Caplan et al., 2002). Caplan and co-workers suggested that neighboring teeth may help distribute occlusal forces (Caplan et al., 2002). Teeth that have 0 or 1 proximal contact may be more likely to be present in individuals with fewer teeth and a poorer oral health status (and perhaps fewer financial resources), but this is speculative.
Few studies have examined the differences in restoration survival by arch. Some authors reported no differences in outcomes between the maxillary and mandibular arches (Drake et al., 1990; Köhler et al., 2000). One study reported lower restoration survival rates in the mandibular arch (McDaniel et al., 2000).
Findings of restoration performance by patient gender have been mixed, with some showing no difference (Dawson and Smales, 1992; Dunne and Millar, 1993; Mjör et al., 2000), and one study finding that survival was superior in female patients (Mahmood and Smales, 1994). Women access dental care differently and react to health promotion in a more positive manner than do men (Zakrzewska, 1996) and are known to access more medical and dental health care and to seek care more frequently (Woolfolk et al., 1999). This may act as a preventive measure, increasing the longevity of restorations through more frequent routine maintenance.
The receipt of less treatment after 10 yrs in crowns could be related to decisions by dentists and patients regarding which teeth should receive crowns. Dentists in this study may have been more likely to ‘treatment plan’ simply a large amalgam for teeth with a questionable prognosis, from a perceived cost-benefit perspective. The difference in outcomes between the two treatment options could thus represent appropriate treatment planning and case selection, so that teeth with a better prognosis receive the more expensive and longer-lasting restoration.
The longer survival of crowns should be interpreted carefully, since it relates to less ‘need’ for treatment. Since this was an observational study, the findings describe the actual care provided, which differs conceptually from the care that was ‘needed’, as measured against a clinical gold standard. Dental practice pattern variations exist and are also expected to exist among practitioners in a dental school. Treatment planning is still driven by the individual dentist (and, in this case, instructor) and patient preferences. Continued research to develop an evidence base for the appropriate provision of routine services is essential.
Since these data were collected from a group of patients seen at a dental school, generalization of the findings beyond this population should be made cautiously. Other information that would have strengthened the findings, but was not available, included the reason for the initial placement of a large amalgam or crown, the practitioner’s long-term prognosis for the tooth/restoration, the level of insurance coverage for crowns and/or personal income information, periodontal status, and additional information about the oral health status of the patient.
A limitation with the use of only administrative and chart data was our inability to identify treatment provided outside the dental school. By survival analysis, the data were censored at the patient’s last visit to the school. Treatment received outside the College when they were also receiving treatment at the College is missing.
The findings do suggest that it is appropriate to consider patient and oral health characteristics in the clinical decision-making process when faced with a tooth that has lost a significant amount of structure. This study provides information that can be used to facilitate dentist and patient education regarding factors to consider when choosing between a large amalgam and a crown. To assist the clinical decision-making process, we plan future research to consider the cost-effectiveness of the two different restorative options.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received November 11, 2003; Last revision July 1, 2004; Accepted August 23, 2004
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Bader JD, Shugars DA (1993). Agreement among dentists’ recommendations for restorative treatment. J Dent Res 72:891–896.
Bader JD, Shugars DA (1995). Variation, treatment outcomes, and practice guidelines in dental practice. J Dent Educ 59:61–95.[Medline]
Bader JD, Shugars DA, Rozier RG (1993). Relationship between epidemiologic coronal caries assessments and practitioners’ treatment recommendations in adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 21:96–101.[ISI][Medline]
Bailit HL, Clive J (1981). The development of dental practice profiles. Med Care 19:30–46.[ISI][Medline]
Caplan DJ, Weintraub JA (1997). Factors related to loss of root canal filled teeth. J Public Health Dent 57:31–39.[ISI][Medline]
Caplan DJ, Kolker J, Rivera EM, Walton RE (2002). Relationship between number of proximal contacts and survival of root canal treated teeth. Int Endod J 35:193–199.[ISI][Medline]
Dawson AS, Smales RJ (1992). The influence of examination frequency and changing dentist on dental treatment provision in an Australian defense force population. Br Dent J 173:237–241.[ISI][Medline]
Drake CW, Maryniuk GA, Bentley C (1990). Reasons for restoration replacement; differences in practice patterns. Quintessence Int 21:125–130.[Medline]
Dunne SM, Millar BJ (1993). A longitudinal study of the clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Br Dent J 175:317–321.[ISI][Medline]
Elderton RJ, Nuttall NM (1983). Variation among dentists in planning treatment. Br Dent J 154:201–206.[ISI][Medline]
Grembowski D, Milgrom P, Fiset L (1990a). Variation in dentist service rates in a homogeneous patient population. J Public Health Dent 50:235–243.[ISI][Medline]
Grembowski D, Milgrom P, Fiset L (1990b). Factors influencing variation in dentists service rates. J Public Health Dent 50:244–250.[ISI][Medline]
Hawthorne WS, Smales RJ (1997). Factors influencing long-term restoration survival in three private dental practices in Adelaide. Aust Dent J 42:59–63.[ISI][Medline]
Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, Ödman P (2000). A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116.[ISI][Medline]
Kolker JL, Damiano PC, Armstrong SR, Bentler SE, Flach SD, Caplan DJ, et al. (2004). Natural history of treatment outcomes for teeth with large amalgam and crown restorations. Oper Dent 29:614–622.[ISI][Medline]
Leempoel PJ, Eschen S, DeHaan AF, Van’t Hof MA (1985). An evaluation of crowns and bridges in a general dental practice. J Oral Rehabil 12:515–528.[ISI][Medline]
Letzel H, Van’t Hof MA, Vrijhoef MMA, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ (1989). Failure, survival, and reasons for replacement of amalgam restorations. In: Quality evaluation of dental restorations: criteria for placement and replacement. Anusavice K, editor. Chicago: Quintessence Publ. Co., pp. 83–94.
Mahmood S, Smales RJ (1994). Longevity of dental restorations in selected patients from different practice environments. Aust Dent J 39:15–17.[ISI][Medline]
Martin JA, Bader JD (1997). Five-year treatment outcomes for teeth with large amalgams and crowns. Oper Dent 22:72–78.[ISI][Medline]
McDaniel RJ, Davis RD, Murchison DF, Cohen RB (2000). Causes of failure among cuspal-coverage amalgam restorations: a clinical survey. J Am Dent Assoc 131:173–177.
Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE (2000). Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 58:97–101.[ISI][Medline]
Plasmans PJ, Creugers NH, Mulder J (1998). Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 77:453–460.
Robbins JW, Summitt JB (1988). Longevity of complex amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 13:54–57.[ISI][Medline]
Shugars DA, Bader JD (1992). Appropriateness of care. Appropriateness of restorative treatment recommendations: a case for practice-based outcomes research. J Am Coll Dent 59:7–13.[Medline]
Shugars DA, Hayden WJ, Crall JJ, Scurria MS (1997). Variation in the use of crowns and their alternatives. J Dent Educ 61:22–28.[Abstract]
Smales RJ (1991). Longevity of cusp-covered amalgams: survivals after 15 years. Oper Dent 16:17–20.[ISI][Medline]
Smales RJ, Hawthorne WS (1997). Long-term survival of extensive amalgams and posterior crowns. J Dent 25:225–227.[ISI][Medline]
Walton JN, Gardner FM, Agar JR (1986). A survey of crown and fixed partial denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement. J Prosthet Dent 56:416–421.[ISI][Medline]
Woolfolk MW, Lang WP, Borgnakke WS, Taylor GW, Ronis DL, Nyquist LV (1999). Determining dental checkup frequency. J Am Dent Assoc 130:715–723.[Abstract]
Zakrzewska JM (1996). Women as dental patients: are there any gender differences? Int Dent J 46:548–557.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Bernardo, H. Luis, M. D. Martin, B. G. Leroux, T. Rue, J. Leitao, and T. A. DeRouen Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2007; 138(6): 775 - 783. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. O. Manda, M. S Gilthorpe, Y.-K. Tu, A. Blance, and M. T Mayhew A Bayesian analysis of amalgam restorations in the Royal Air Force using the counting process approach with nested frailty effects Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 567 - 578. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. KOLKER, P. C. DAMIANO, D. J. CAPLAN, S. R. ARMSTRONG, D. V. DAWSON, M. P. JONES, S. D. FLACH, J. J. WARREN, and R. A. KUTHY Teeth with large amalgam restorations and crowns: Factors affecting the receipt of subsequent treatment after 10 years J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2005; 136(6): 738 - 748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
