Association of indirect restorations with past caries history and present need for restorative treatment in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966
- 97 Downloads
The objective of this study is to examine the prevalence of indirect restorations and their association with past caries history and present need for restorative treatment among adults in Northern Finland.
Materials and methods
The study population was a subsample of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (n = 1961). The oral examinations were performed in 2012–2013. Indirect restorations (inlays/onlays and single crowns) were recorded tooth wise. Caries history was described with the sum of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMF). Caries was assessed using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS). The score of 4 was used as the cut off point for visible decay. Present need for restorative treatment was calculated by summing the decayed (D) and fractured (Fr) teeth. Need for restorative treatment was dichotomized to low [(D + Fr) ≤ 1] and high [(D + Fr) > 1].
Altogether, 7.8% of the study population had indirect restorations. The prevalence of indirect restorations did not differ within DMF (p = 0.925), but it was higher among the subjects with a low need for restorative treatment (p < 0.001).
Indirect restorations were rare in the adult population and found mainly among the subjects with a low need for restorative treatment.
The results of the study can encourage dentists to consider more often indirect restorations for subjects with a need for restorative treatment.
KeywordsDental restoration Dental caries NFBC1966 Restorative treatment ICDAS DMF index
We thank the late professor Paula Rantakallio (launch of NFBC1966), the participants in the 46y study, and the NFBC project center. We also thank Mr. Jari Päkkilä for designing the software (electronic patient file) for this cohort study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Fejerskov O, Kidd E (2008) Pathology of dental caries. In: Fejersko O, Nyvad B, Kidd E (eds) Dental caries, 2nd edn. Blackwell Munksgaard, Oxford, p 20Google Scholar
- 6.Alvanforoush N, Palamara J, Wong R, Burrow MF (2016) A comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995–2005 and 2006–2016 periods. Aust Dent J. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12487
- 9.International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) Committee (2005) Rationale and evidence for the international caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS II). https://www.icdas.org/uploads/Rationale%20and%20Evidence%20ICDAS%20II%20revised%20re%20people%20only%202013.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2016
- 12.Shillingburg HT, Staher DA, Wilson EL, Cain JR, Mitchell DC, Blanco LJ et al (2012) Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics, 4th edn. Quintessence Publishing Co, Chicago, p 197Google Scholar
- 14.Sequeira-Byron P, Fedorowicz Z, Carter B, Nasser M, Alrowaili EF (2015) Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. The Cochrane Database Syst Rev (9):CD009109. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009109.pub3
- 17.Alaraudanjoki V, Laitala ML, Tjaderhane L, Pesonen P, Lussi A, Anttonen V (2016) Association of erosive tooth wear and dental caries in Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966—an epidemiological cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health, 17(1), x. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0232-x
- 19.Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z (2014) Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD005620. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub2
- 22.Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE (2015) All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs): a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 31(6):603–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Tanner T, Kamppi A, Pakkila J, Patinen P, Rosberg J, Karjalainen K et al (2013) Prevalence and polarization of dental caries among young, healthy adults: cross-sectional epidemiological study. Acta Odontol Scand 71(6):1436–1442. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.767932 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Zitzmann NU, Hagmann E, Weiger R (2007) What is the prevalence of various types of prosthetic dental restorations in Europe? Clin Oral Implants Res, 18 Suppl 3, 20–33Google Scholar
- 36.Napankangas R, Haikola B, Oikarinen K, Soderholm AL, Remes-Lyly T, Sipila K (2011) Prevalence of single crowns and fixed partial dentures in elderly citizens in the southern and northern parts of Finland. J Oral Rehab 38(5):328–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02159.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar