This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kolker, J.L. Articles by Warren, J.J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kolker, J.L. Articles by Warren, J.J. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Timing of Subsequent Treatment for Teeth Restored with Large Amalgams and Crowns: Factors Related to the Need for Subsequent Treatment

¹ University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics, 1011 N. University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078, USA;
² University of Iowa, Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry;
³ University of Iowa, Department of Biostatistics;
⁴ University of North Carolina, Department of Dental Ecology;
⁵ University of Iowa, Department of Operative Dentistry;
⁶ University of Iowa, Department of General Internal Medicine; and
⁷ University of Iowa, Public Policy Center;

Correspondence: ^* corresponding author, jkolker{at}umich.edu

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.

Key Words: dental amalgam • crowns • longitudinal study • survival analysis • treatment outcome

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 83, No. 11, 854-858 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910408301106


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Bernardo, H. Luis, M. D. Martin, B. G. Leroux, T. Rue, J. Leitao, and T. A. DeRouen Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2007; 138(6): 775 - 783. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. O. Manda, M. S Gilthorpe, Y.-K. Tu, A. Blance, and M. T Mayhew A Bayesian analysis of amalgam restorations in the Royal Air Force using the counting process approach with nested frailty effects Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 567 - 578. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. L. KOLKER, P. C. DAMIANO, D. J. CAPLAN, S. R. ARMSTRONG, D. V. DAWSON, M. P. JONES, S. D. FLACH, J. J. WARREN, and R. A. KUTHY Teeth with large amalgam restorations and crowns: Factors affecting the receipt of subsequent treatment after 10 years J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2005; 136(6): 738 - 748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]