Incidence of endodontic therapy after complete or partial coverage glass-ceramic restorations with a follow-up time of over 30 years: A prospective clinical study

Abstract

Statement of problemLong-term clinical data are lacking on the comparison of the incidence of endodontic therapy in adhesively luted complete and partial coverage glass-ceramic restorations, as well as on the effect of technique and clinical variables. PurposeThe purpose of this prospective clinical study was to assess the long-term incidence of teeth requiring endodontic therapy after receiving either complete or partial coverage glass-ceramic restorations. Material and methodsParticipants requiring single anterior complete, posterior complete, or posterior partial (inlay or onlay) coverage restoration, or a combination of these on a vital tooth were recruited from a clinical private practice. Only the participants who chose glass-ceramic partial and complete coverage restorations without the need of endodontic therapy were included in the study. The overall clinical performance of these glass-ceramic restorations was assessed by clinical factors determined at recall. The effect of various clinical parameters (type of restoration, dental arch, tooth position in the dental arch, age and sex of participant, and ceramic thickness) was evaluated by using Kaplan–Meier survival curves to account for attrition bias and other reasons for failure. The statistical significance of differences between parameters was determined by using the log rank test (α=.05). ResultsA total of 1800 participants requiring 4511 glass-ceramic anterior and posterior restorations were evaluated. The mean age of the participants at the time of restoration placement was 62 (range 20 to 99 years, 710 men and 1090 women). Of 4511 restorations, 1476 were anterior complete coverage, 2119 posterior complete coverage, and 916 posterior partial coverage. Endodontic therapy after restoration placement was needed for 76 restorations (10 anterior complete, 50 posterior complete, and 16 posterior partial). The total time at risk was 50 436 years providing an estimated need for endodontic therapy risk of 0.15% per year. The estimated 35-year cumulative survival was 97.36%. The majority of endodontic treatments (67%, 52/76) occurred in the first 5 years.The estimated cumulative survival of anterior complete coverage, posterior complete coverage, posterior partial inlay, and posterior partial onlay restorations was 98.89% (n=1476, 10 endodontic treatments), 96.38% (n=2119, 50 endodontic treatments), 96.78% (n=553, 11 endodontic treatments), and 98.53% (n=363, 5 endodontic treatments), respectively. Statistically significant differences occurred between anterior complete coverage, posterior complete coverage, and posterior partial coverage inlay restorations, with a higher incidence in posterior complete coverage and posterior partial inlay restorations (P<.05). First molars had the highest rate of endodontic therapy after restoration in both arches. Age and restoration thickness were significant factors, recording statistically higher number of endodontic treatments in participants >52 years and restorations with all surfaces ≥1 mm (P<.05). Other clinical variables, dental arch and sex of the participants, were not significantly related to endodontic treatments (P>.05). ConclusionsThe clinical performance of 4511 units over 30 years in service was excellent, with the estimated cumulative survival of 97.36%. Posterior complete coverage and posterior partial inlay restorations had a significantly higher need for endodontic therapy than anterior complete coverage restorations. Their overall clinical performance relative to endodontic treatment was excellent with a cumulative survival of 96.38% and 96.78% over 30 years. There was no difference in the endodontic treatment rate between posterior complete and partial coverage restorations. Thickness of the restoration affected the endodontic treatment rate, with ≥1 mm resulting in higher incidence. The age of the participants influenced the endodontic treatment rate, with higher incidence in the >52-year age group. Other confounding clinical variables did not have a significant effect on the endodontic treatment rate.