STUDY ON THE PREVALENCE AND RISK FACTORS FOR CARIES ADJACENT TO POSTERIOR COMPOSITE RESIN RESTORATIONS

Authors

  • R. BRANZAN ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • Angela GHIORGHE ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • C. TOPOLICEANU ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • A. GEORGESCU ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • A. M. TANASA ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • S. ANDRIAN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22551/vd34fa10

Abstract

Aims of the study were as follows: to determine the prevalence of caries adjacent to direct posterior composite resin restorations (CARS); to analyze the distribution of caries adjacent to coronal restorations in relation to socio-demographic, individual, and local parameters; to identify significant risk factors associated with caries adjacent to composite resin coronal restorations. Materials and methods: The retrospective study included 45 patients (mean age: 23.40 ± 4.027 years; gender: 31 males, 29 females) with 305 direct nanohybrid composite restorations aged 1-5 years. Univariate analysis was used to identify risk factors and odds ratios for the occurrence of CARS. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify combinations of risk factors that significantly increased the probability of CARS. The association between CARS and marginal integrity was assessed by the Spearman test. Results: According to FDI criteria, 8.9% of restorations had a score of 12.4 (micro-cavitated CARS extended to dentin), 3.9% had a score of 12.5 (cavitated CARS). Odds ratio for CARS were 2.135 for high caries risk, 2.179 for female gender, and 19.19 for impaired marginal integrity (scores 6.2-6.5) (OR 19.19). Conclusions: The prevalence of CARS in micro-cavitated and cavitated stage was 26.6%. Risk factors for CARS in direct posterior composite resins restorations were high cariogenic risk, female gender, and impaired marginal integrity. Risk predictors for caries adjacent to posterior composite resin coronal restorations, identified in multivariate analysis, were female gender and impaired marginal integrity. The risk of developing CARS increases progressively with the degree of marginal integrity impairment.

Author Biographies

  • R. BRANZAN, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Ph.D. Student

  • Angela GHIORGHE, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Dental Medicine

  • C. TOPOLICEANU, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Dental Medicine

  • A. GEORGESCU, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Dental Medicine

  • A. M. TANASA, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Ph.D. Student

  • S. ANDRIAN

    Faculty of Dental Medicine

References

1. Worthington HV, Khangura S, Seal K, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 8(8): CD005620 / doi: 10.1002/1465 1858.CD005620.pub3.

2. Nedeljkovic I, De Munck J, Vanloy A, et al. Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and ap-proach. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24(2): 683-691.

3. van Dijken JW, Lindberg A. A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite. Dent Mater 2015; 31(9): 1150-1158.

4. Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93(10): 943-949.

5. Tiron B, Forna N, Topoliceanu C, et al. Assessment of factors influencing the esthetic, functional and biological status of posterior composite resins restorations. Rom J Oral Reh 2023; 15(3): 29-41.

6. Pancu G, Georgescu A, Moldovanu A, et al. Non-intervention versus repair/replacement decisions in posterior composite restorations aged 3-5 years: a retrospective study. Romanian Journal of Oral Re-habilitation 2024; 16(2): 186-195.

7. Laske M, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Braspenning JC, Huysmans MC. Longevity of direct restora-tions in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice-based research network. J Dent 2016; 46: 12-17.

8. Nedeljkovic I, De Munck J, Vanloy A, et al. Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and ap-proach. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24(2): 683-691.

9. Gallo M, Abouelleil H, Chenal JM, Adrien J, Lachambre J, Colon P, Maire E. Polymerization shrink-age of resin-based composites for dental restorations: A digital volume correlation study. Dent Mater 2019; 35(11): 1654-1664.

10. 10.Benetti AR, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A, Flury S. Resin composites: Modulus of elasticity and marginal quality. J Dent 2014; 42(9): 1185-1192.

11. Ghiorghe CA, Iovan G, Carlescu V, Istrate B, Pancu G, Andrian S. Comparative Evaluation of Hard-ness and Elasticity Modulus of Tooth-Colored Materials for Dental Restoration. Revista de Chimie 2017; 68 (11): 2623-2627.

12. Askar H, Krois J, Göstemeyer G, et al. Secondary caries: what is it, and how it can be controlled, detected, and managed? Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24(5): 1869-1876.

13. Hickel R, Mesinger S, Opdam N, et al. Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations-recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting. Clin Oral Investig 2023; 27(6): 2573-2592.

14. Pizzolotto L, Moraes RR. Resin Composites in Posterior Teeth: Clinical Performance and Direct Restorative Techniques. Dent J (Basel) 2022; 10(12): 222 / doi: 10.3390/dj10120222.

15. Yon MJY, Gao SS, Chen KJ, Duangthip D, Lo ECM, Chu CH. Medical Model in Caries Management. Dent J (Basel) 2019; 7(2): 37 / doi: 10.3390/dj7020037.

16. Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Montagner AF, et al. Longevity of composite restorations is definitely not only about materials. Dent Mater 2023; 39(1): 1-12.

17. Baldissera RA, Corrêa MB, Schuch HS, et al. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth? J Dent 2013; 41(11): 1027-1035.

18. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 2-8.

19. Krämer N, Küssner P, Motmaen I, Köhl M, Wöstmann B, Frankenberger R. Marginal quality and wear of extended posterior resin composite restorations: Eight-year results in vivo. J. Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2015; 50: 13-22.

20. Kidd E, Fejerskov O. Changing concepts in cariology: 40 years on. Dent Update 2013; 40(4): 277-286.

21. Dos Santos GO, Dos Santos ME, Sampaio EM, Diass KR, Da Silva EM. Influence of C-factor and light-curing mode on gap formation in resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009; 4: 544-550.

22. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 2-8.

23. Elgezawi M, Haridy R, Abdalla MA, Heck K, Draenert M, Kaisarly D. Current Strategies to Control Recurrent and Residual Caries with Resin Composite Restorations: Operator- and Material-Related Factors. J Clin Med 2022; 11(21): 6591 / doi: 10.3390/jcm11216591.

24. Tjaderhane L. Dentin Bonding: Can We Make It Last? J Op Dent 2015; 40(1): 4-18.

25. Silva JD, et al. Forças de contraçăo de polimerizaçăo em resinas compostas constituídas com novas matrizes orgânicas e fotoativadas por diferentes técnicas. Rev Odontol Bras Central 2017; 26(79): 21-25.

26. Pinna R, Usai P, Filigheddu E, Garcia-Godoy F, Milia E. The role of adhesive materials and oral biofilm in the failure of adhesive resin restorations. Am J Dent 2017; 30(5): 285-292.

27. Jokstad A. Secondary caries and microleakage. Dent Mater 2016; 32(1): 11-25.

Additional Files

Published

2025-04-07