Research | Published:

The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 7: premolar teeth: time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth

BDJ volume 225, pages 633644 (12 October 2018) | Download Citation

Subjects

Key points

  • Overall, over 3.5 million restorations involving premolar teeth were included in the analysis. With regard to time to re-intervention, 42% of restorations had survived at 15 years, and with regard to time to extraction of the restored tooth, cumulative survival was 82%. Factors influencing survival include age of patient, patient's treatment need, and age of dentist.

  • Overall, crowns placed on premolar teeth perform best to re-intervention after 15 years, but worst when the time to extraction of the restored tooth is examined. However, crowns represent a better option in terms of years to extraction of the restored tooth in the over 60 year age group.

  • With regard to tooth position, restored premolar teeth in the upper arch have less good survival time to extraction than those in the lower arch, whereas time to re-intervention on the restoration is similar in both arches.

Abstract

Aim

It is the aim of this paper to present data on the survival of restorations in premolar teeth by analysis of the time to re-intervention on the restorations and time to extraction of the restored tooth, and to discuss the factors which may influence this.

Methods

A data set was established, consisting of General Dental Services (GDS) patients, this being obtained from all records for adults (aged 18 or over at date of acceptance) in the GDS of England and Wales between 1990 and 2006. The data consist of items obtained from the payment claims submitted by GDS dentists to the Dental Practice Board (DPB) in Eastbourne, Sussex, UK. This study examined the recorded intervals between placing a restoration in a premolar tooth and re-intervention on the tooth, and the time to extraction of the restored tooth.

Results

Data for more than three million different patients and more than 25 million courses of treatment were included in the analysis. Included were all records for adults (aged 18 or over at date of acceptance). In total, 3,591,372 restorations involving premolar teeth were included in the analysis. With regard to time to re-intervention, 42% of restorations had survived at 15 years, and with regard to time to extraction of the restored tooth, cumulative survival was 82%.

Conclusions

Overall, crowns placed on premolar teeth perform best to re-intervention after 15 years, but worst when the time to extraction of the restored tooth is examined. Factors influencing restoration longevity in premolar teeth include: age of patient, patient's treatment need, and age of dentist.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , . The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 1: methodology. Br Dent J 2018; 224: 709–716.

  2. 2.

    Information Centre for Health and Social Care, NHS Business Services Authority. Longitudinal Dental Treatment, 1990–2006. [data collection]. UK Data Service, 2012.

  3. 3.

    , . The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 6: molar teeth: restoration time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth. Br Dent J 2018; 225: 525–536

  4. 4.

    , , , , . Longevity of restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice-based research network. J.Dent 2016; 46: 12–17.

  5. 5.

    , , et al. Five year clinical evaluation of restorations placed in a low shrinkage stress composite in UK dental practices. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent 2017; 25: 108–114.

  6. 6.

    , , , . Longevity of 2-and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth in 25-to 30-year olds attending a Public Dental Service: A 13-year observation. J Dent 2017; 62: 13–17.

  7. 7.

    , , , , , . A survey of cusp fractures in a population of general dental practices. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 559–563.

  8. 8.

    , . Fractures of posterior teeth: a review and analysis of predisposing factors. Prim Dent Care 1995; 2: 6–10.

  9. 9.

    , . The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 2: Amalgam restorations – time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth. Br Dent J 2018; 224: 789–800.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Data Service, the Health and Social Care Information Centre and the NHS Business Services Authority for collating and releasing this valuable data resource.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Primary Dental Care Research Group, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Pebble Mill, Birmingham, B5 7EG, UK

    • P. S. K. Lucarotti
    •  & F. J. T. Burke

Authors

  1. Search for P. S. K. Lucarotti in:

  2. Search for F. J. T. Burke in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. S. K. Lucarotti.

About this article

Publication history

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.816