Crowns and large amalgams protect structurally compromised teeth to various degrees in different situations. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the survival of teeth with these two types of restorations and the factors associated with better outcomes. Retrospective administrative and chart data were used. Survival was defined and modeled as: (1) receipt of no treatment and (2) receipt of no catastrophic treatment over five- and 10-year periods. Analyses included: Kaplan-Meier survival curves, Log-Rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. Crowns survived longer with no treatment and with no catastrophic treatment; however, mandibular large amalgams were least likely to have survived with no treatment, and maxillary large amalgams were least likely to have survived with no catastrophic treatment. Having no adjacent teeth also decreased survival. Crowns survived longer than large amalgams, but factors such as arch type and the presence of adjacent teeth contributed to the survival of large amalgams.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ -2002-. Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent87:256–263.
2.
Bader JD, Shugars DA -1993-. Agreement among dentists’ recommendations for restorative treatment. J Dent Res72:891–896.
3.
Bader JD, Shugars DA -1995-. Variation, treatment outcomes, and practice guidelines in dental practice. J Dent Educ59:61–95.
4.
Bader JD, Shugars DA, Rozier RG -1993-. Relationship between epidemiologic coronal caries assessments and practitioners’ treatment recommendations in adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol21:96–101.
5.
Bailit HL, Clive J -1981-. The development of dental practice profiles. Med Care19:30–46.
6.
Caplan DJ, Weintraub JA -1997-. Factors related to loss of root canal filled teeth. J Public Health Dent57:31–39.
7.
Caplan DJ, Kolker J, Rivera EM, Walton RE -2002-. Relationship between number of proximal contacts and survival of root canal treated teeth. Int Endod J35:193–199.
8.
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 J173:237–241.
9.
Drake CW, Maryniuk GA, Bentley C -1990-. Reasons for restoration replacement; differences in practice patterns. Quintessence Int21:125–130.
10.
Dunne SM, Millar BJ -1993-. A longitudinal study of the clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Br Dent J175:317–321.
11.
Elderton RJ, Nuttall NM -1983-. Variation among dentists in planning treatment. Br Dent J154:201–206.
12.
Grembowski D, Milgrom P, Fiset L -1990a-. Variation in dentist service rates in a homogeneous patient population. J Public Health Dent50:235–243.
13.
Grembowski D, Milgrom P, Fiset L -1990b-. Factors influencing variation in dentists service rates. J Public Health Dent50:244–250.
14.
Hawthorne WS, Smales RJ -1997-. Factors influencing long-term restoration survival in three private dental practices in Adelaide. Aust Dent J42:59–63.
15.
Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, Ödman P -2000-. A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent28:111–116.
16.
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 Dent29:614–622.
17.
Leempoel PJ, Eschen S, DeHaan AF, Van’t Hof MA -1985-. An evaluation of crowns and bridges in a general dental practice. J Oral Rehabil12:515–528.
18.
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.
19.
Mahmood S, Smales RJ -1994-. Longevity of dental restorations in selected patients from different practice environments. Aust Dent J39:15–17.
20.
Martin JA, Bader JD -1997-. Five-year treatment outcomes for teeth with large amalgams and crowns. Oper Dent22:72–78.
21.
McDaniel RJ, Davis RD, Murchison DF, Cohen RB -2000-. Causes of failure among cuspal-coverage amalgam restorations: a clinical survey. J Am Dent Assoc131:173–177.
22.
Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE -2000-. Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand58:97–101.
Shugars DA, Bader JD -1992-. Appropriateness of care. Appropriateness of restorative treatment recommendations: a case for practice-based outcomes research. J Am Coll Dent59:7–13.
26.
Shugars DA, Hayden WJ, Crall JJ, Scurria MS -1997-. Variation in the use of crowns and their alternatives. J Dent Educ61:22–28.
27.
Smales RJ -1991-. Longevity of cusp-covered amalgams: survivals after 15 years. Oper Dent16:17–20.
28.
Smales RJ, Hawthorne WS -1997-. Long-term survival of extensive amalgams and posterior crowns. J Dent25:225–227.
29.
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 Dent56:416–421.
30.
Woolfolk MW, Lang WP, Borgnakke WS, Taylor GW, Ronis DL, Nyquist LV -1999-. Determining dental checkup frequency. J Am Dent Assoc130:715–723.
31.
Zakrzewska JM -1996-. Women as dental patients: are there any gender differences? Int Dent J46:548–557.
