Reasons for replacement of restorations: dentists' perceptions

Abstract Objective. This study aimed at evaluating dentists' perceived reasons for replacement of restorations and ascertaining the differences arising from dentists' gender, time since graduation and working sector (salaried vs private). Materials and methods. A postal questionnaire was sent to a total of 592 working-age general dental practitioners in Finland, 57% (n = 339) responded. The dentists were asked to rank in order of priority the six most common reasons for replacement of composite in the incisors and posterior teeth and amalgam in the posterior tooth from a list of 12 reasons. Ranking order 1 was worth six points and order 6 one point; the non-ranked reasons were equal to zero. Differences in the means of the summed scores of caries-related (RC), fracture- and failure-related (RF) and miscellaneous (RO) groups were evaluated by ANOVA. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05. Results. For each of three restorations, the RF group comprised 48-56% of the sum-scores. Of the single reasons, secondary caries predominated (20-24%). For composite restorations in the incisors, the mean sum-score of the RO group was greater for private-sector dentists (p = 0.04). For composite restorations in the posterior teeth, the mean sum-score of RF group was higher for male than female dentists (p = 0.009). For amalgam, mean score for RF was 10.2, followed by RC (8.5) and RO (1.1). Conclusion. Secondary caries and various fractures and failures predominate as dentists' perceived reasons for replacement of restorations. Private dentists included miscellaneous reasons as one of their six reasons more often than did the salaried dentists. The complex process of treatment planning and decision-making is influenced by many as of yet unknown factors, calling for emphasis on investigating of perceptions.     

Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations

BackgroundThe aim of the present study is to evaluate the most common reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations in patients attending the university dental restorative clinics.MethodsA total of 318 restorations which needed to be replaced were clinically and radiographically evaluated in a period of nine months. The frequencies of reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations were calculated; secondary caries, restoration/tooth fracture, marginal discoloration/ditching, proximal overhang/open margin, loss of anatomy, pain/sensitivity, and esthetics.ResultsThe sample population comprised of 191 females and 106 males. The majority of the sample population fell in the age group of 40–50 years (n = 110). 318 restorations (n = 318) were examined in this study. 82% of examined teeth were restored with amalgam (n = 261), while posterior composite restorations comprised 18% of the examined teeth (n = 57). Among all restorations demanded to be replaced by the patients (n = 318), aesthetic need was the most common reason (n = 98), followed by Ditching or discoloration (n = 64), secondary caries (n = 57), and fracture (n = 44). Loss of anatomy was the least common cause to replace both amalgam and resin composite restorations (n = 5). The different reasons of failure were all significant between amalgam and resin composite restorations as shown in (Fig. 1) (p < 0.005). The most common reason for amalgam replacement was aesthetic. The most common reason for composite replacement was secondary caries and marginal ditching.ConclusionBoth amalgam and composite had different reasons for replacement. Amalgam had lesser risk of developing secondary caries and higher longevity than composite.     

Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Failure of dental restorations is a major concern in dental practice. Replacement of failed restorations constitutes the majority of operative work. Clinicians should be aware of the longevity of, and likely reasons for the failure of, direct posterior restorations. In a long-term, randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the longevity of amalgam and composite. SUBJECTS, METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors randomly assigned one-half of the 472 subjects, whose age ranged from 8 through 12 years, to receive amalgam restorations in posterior teeth and the other one-half to receive resin-based composite restorations. Study dentists saw subjects annually to conduct follow-up oral examinations and take bitewing radiographs. Restorations needing replacement were failures. The dentists recorded differential reasons for restoration failure. RESULTS: Subjects received a total of 1,748 restorations at baseline, which the authors followed for up to seven years. Overall, 10.1 percent of the baseline restorations failed. The survival rate of the amalgam restorations was 94.4 percent; that of composite restorations was 85.5 percent. Annual failure rates ranged from 0.16 to 2.83 percent for amalgam restorations and from 0.94 to 9.43 percent for composite restorations. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure in both materials. Risk of secondary caries was 3.5 times greater in the composite group. CONCLUSION: Amalgam restorations performed better than did composite restorations. The difference in performance was accentuated in large restorations and in those with more than three surfaces involved. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Use of amalgam appears to be preferable to use of composites in multisurface restorations of large posterior teeth if longevity is the primary criterion in material selection.     

Reasons for Placement of Restorations on Previously Unrestored Tooth Surfaces by Dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network

ObjectiveThe authors conducted a study to identify and quantify the reasons used by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) for placing restorations on unrestored permanent tooth surfaces and the dental materials they used in doing so.MethodsA total of 229 DPBRN practitioner-investigators provided data from their practices regarding 9,890 consecutive restorations in 5,810 patients. Information the practitioner-investigators provided included their reasons for restoring the teeth, the specific teeth and surfaces they restored and the restorative materials they used.ResultsPrimary caries (85 percent of teeth, 8,351 of 9,890) and noncarious defects (15 percent, 1,479 of 9,890) were the main reasons participants gave for placing restorations. Participants placed restorations necessitated by caries most frequently on occlusal surfaces (49 percent, 4,091 of 8,351). They used amalgam for 47 percent of the molar restorations and 45 percent of the premolar restorations. They used directly placed resin-based composite (RBC) for 48 percent of the molar restorations, 50 percent of the premolar restorations and 93 percent of the anterior restorations.ConclusionDPBRN practitioner-investigators cited dental caries on occlusal and proximal surfaces of molar teeth as the main reasons for placing restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces. RBC was the material they used most commonly for occlusal and anterior restorations. Amalgam remains the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries, although the authors noted significant differences in the use of amalgam and RBC by dentists in various regions of the DPBRN.     

Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice

The ages of 6,761 restorations replaced in permanent teeth, 6,088 in adults ≥19 years of age and 673 in adolescents ≤18 years, were available for analyses. The results showed that the median age of amalgam restorations in adults was 11 years and that of resin-based composite restorations 8 years. This difference in longevity was significant (P = 0.0001). The median age of failed conventional glass ionomer restorations in adults was 4 years and for resin-modified glass ionomer 2 years. In adolescents, the median longevity of failed amalgam restorations was 5 years and that of composite restorations 3 years, while both types of glass ionomers had a median longevity of 2 years. The data were subdivided based on clinician gender and practice setting. The results showed that the median age of amalgam and composite restorations replaced by male clinicians was higher than that for female clinicians irrespective of clinical setting. The median age of amalgam and composite restorations replaced by salaried dentists was significantly lower than that by private practitioners. Minor differences were noted in longevity of restorations between male and female patients. The age of replaced restorations was shortest for the group of clinicians with the least clinical experience and highest for those that graduated ≥ 30 years ago.

Keywords: Amalgam composite; gender differences; glass; ionomer; practice setting     

What German dentists choose for their teeth: A Web-based survey of molar restorations and their longevity

Statement of problemWhich restorative material is best suited for treating the posterior molar region is unclear. As dentists presumably choose the most appropriate restoration, German dentists were asked how their own molars were treated.PurposeThe purpose of this survey study was to examine molar restorations and their durability in German dentists.Material and methodsIn the official journal of the Federal Dental Association, German dentists were asked to participate in an online survey that gathered demographic data and information on the type and durability of their molar restorations. To reduce selection bias, the data were weighted for region, sex, and age of the dentist.ResultsThe data set consisted of 1719 molars from 288 dentists. Restorations included gold inlays (25%), composite resin (24.3%), amalgam (11.8%), ceramic inlays (5.4%), glass ionomer cement or compomer (0.8%), gold crowns (21.8%), ceramic crowns (6.6%), and metal-ceramic crowns (4.3%). Notable differences were identified based on the sex, age, and region of the dentist. Women selected increased esthetic options, as did young dentists. Restorations made of gold, amalgam, and base metal had the highest longevity, at more than 20 yearsConclusionsAmong German dentists, restorations with metallic materials dominated in molars, with gold accounting for the largest share. In recent years, the proportion of tooth-colored restorations has increased, and in particular, young dentists use composite resin and ceramics.     

Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network

BackgroundThe authors aimed to determine whether dentists in practices belonging to The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) were more likely to repair or to replace a restoration that they diagnosed as defective; to quantify dentists' specific reasons for repairing or replacing restorations; and to test the hypothesis that certain dentist-, patient- and restoration-related variables are associated with the decision between repairing and replacing restorations.MethodsThis cross-sectional study had a consecutive patient and restoration recruitment design. Practitioner-investigators (P-Is) recorded data for consecutively seen restorations in permanent teeth that needed repair or replacement. The DPBRN is a consortium of dental practitioners and dental organizations in the United States and Scandinavia. The collected data included the primary reason for repair or replacement, tooth surface or surfaces involved, restorative materials used and patients' demographic information.ResultsP-Is collected data regarding 9,484 restorations from 7,502 patients in 197 practices. Seventy-five percent (7,073) of restorations were replaced and 25 percent (2,411) repaired. Secondary caries was the main reason (43 percent, n = 4,124) for treatment. Factors associated with a greater likelihood of repairing versus replacing restorations (P N/A .05) included having graduated from dental school more recently, practicing in a large group practice, being the dentist who placed the original restoration, patient's being of an older age, the original restorative material's being something other than amalgam, restoration of a molar and the original restoration's involving fewer tooth surfaces.ConclusionsDPBRN dentists were more likely to replace than to repair restorations. Secondary caries was the most common reason for repairing or replacing restorations. Certain dentist-, patient- and restoration-related variables were associated with the repair-or-replace decision.Clinical ImplicationsThe selection of minimally invasive treatment for an existing restoration is critical, as it may affect the longevity of the tooth.     

Placement and replacement of restorations in a military population

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reasons for placement and replacement of restorations provided to military personnel by all 34 dentists stationed in the four Atlantic provinces of Canada. All dentists who participated in this study are salaried. Over a period of 30 working days, each dentist recorded information on all restorations performed. Data were collected on dentists' year of graduation, patient age, treatment requirements, tooth number, restoration class, materials used and reasons for placement and replacement. All dentists used the same data collection form which was pilot tested. Information was collected on 2,280 restorations from 643 adults, 18 to 57 years of age. Of all restorations, 54.3% were placements and 45.7% were replacements. No difference in placement and replacement rates between amalgam and composites was reported. The major reason for placement was primary caries (90%). The major reasons for replacements were recurrent caries (40.0%), primary caries of interproximal surfaces (18.9%), and fractured restorations (12.3%). Of the 297 MOD restorations, 74.3% were replacements and of the 1,140 Class I + III + V restorations, 27.8% were replacements. This study showed that about half of the restorative work carried out were replacements. Caries is the primary reason for placement and replacement of restorations in adults.     

A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the longevity of class I and II amalgam and composite resin restorations placed in a general practice. METHODS: Patient records of a general practice were used for collecting the data for this study. From the files longevity and reasons for failure of 2867 class I and II amalgam and composite resin restorations placed in 621 patients by two operators between 1990 and 1997 were recorded in 2002. RESULTS: 912 amalgam restorations (502 by operator 1 and 410 by operator 2) and 1955 posterior composite resin restorations (1470 by operator 1 and 485 by operator 2) were placed. One hundred and eighty-two amalgam and 259 posterior composite resin restorations failed during the observation period. The main reasons for failure of the restorations were caries (34%), endodontic treatment (12%) and fracture of the tooth (13%). Life tables calculated from the data reveal a survival for composite resin of 91.7% at 5 years and 82.2% at 10 years. For amalgam the survival is 89.6% at 5 years and 79.2% at 10 years. Cox-regression analysis resulted in a significant effect of the amount of restored surfaces on the survival of the restorations. No significant effect of operator, material as well as combination of material and operator was found. SIGNIFICANCE: In the investigated general practice, two dentists obtained comparable longevity for amalgam and composite resin restorations.     

Organization and overall job satisfaction among publicly employed,salaried dentists in Sweden and Denmark

Abstract

Background. In Sweden and Denmark, clinical dentistry is changing and public dentistry is in transition towards more market orientation. Dentists' overall job satisfaction is important for how public dentistry can fulfil the new expectations from patients, the public and politicians. Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate what organizational factors were important for publicly employed salaried dentists' overall job satisfaction. Methods. A random sample of active, general dental practitioners (private and publicly employed) was selected in Denmark and in Sweden, and they received a postal questionnaire. The number of questionnaires was 1835 and the response rate was 68% (n = 1226). This study analysed only the publicly employed dentists. The sampling frame for the Swedish dentists was 431, response rate 68.9% (n = 297) and for the Danish ones 194, response rate 81.9% (n = 159). Multivariate regression was used with overall job satisfaction as a dependent variable. Results. Common organizational variables were important. The used model explained between 32% (Sweden) and 39% (Denmark) of the variance in overall job satisfaction. The only significant individual factor was less job satisfaction for Swedish dentists born outside Sweden. An organizational climate characterized by a focus on professional values was associated with job satisfaction in both countries. Among the Swedish dentists, number of colleagues and degree of influence were also important and among the Danish ones sufficient time for patients. Conclusions. Organizational factors had an impact on salaried publicly employed dentists' overall job satisfaction in both countries. The findings may have implications for other Human Service Organizations with employed professionals.     

Type and time of first re-intervention of posterior restorations – 13-year scenario at the public dental service

Abstract

Objectives: We investigated the first re-interventions of two- and three-surface direct restorations on posterior teeth, specifically noting the type and time of the first re-intervention.

Materials and methods: In 2002, altogether 5542 posterior two- and three-surface composite and amalgam restorations were done for 3051 patients aged 25–30?years at Helsinki City Public Dental Service (PDS). Based on electronic patient records, we analysed all restorations (n?=?2445) having re-intervention during a 13-year follow-up. We recorded the type of tooth, restoration size, and type of first re-intervention. The time to re-intervention was the interval between the date of the placement of restoration at the year 2002 and its first re-intervention.

Results: Restorative treatment was the most common (77.9%) first re-intervention, followed by endodontics (11.5%), extractions (5.2%), and other (5.4%). Males, more frequently than females, had extraction or endodontics as first re-intervention. The average time to re-intervention was 5.7?years (SD 3.8; median 5.2). Both median and mean times were shortest for cases involving endodontics or extractions.

Conclusions: For the majority of two- and three-surface posterior restorations, the first re-intervention is restorative (replacement or repair of restoration). The shortest time to re-intervention is for restorations that have endodontics or extraction as the first re-intervention.     

Defective restoration repair or replacement: An American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators Panel survey

BackgroundClinicians often encounter defective restorations and are faced with the difficult decision of whether to repair the existing restoration or replace it.MethodsAn electronic survey on repairing or replacing defective restorations was developed to assess how clinicians are making these decisions and the technical aspects considered when making a repair. E-mails containing the survey link were sent to the American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators (ACE) Panel on August 14, 2019, and the survey remained open for 2 weeks. Nonrespondents were sent reminders 1 week after deployment.ResultsApproximately 4 of every 5 respondents repair defective restorations. The top 3 conditions for making these repairs were noncarious marginal defects (87%), partial loss or fracture of the restoration (79%), and crown margin repair due to carious lesions (73%). Among respondents who repair defective restorations, almost all repair direct resin composite (98%), whereas approximately one-third do not repair the other restorative materials (that is, amalgam, glass ionomer, and fractured indirect all-ceramic crowns). Resin composite is used most often to repair resin direct composite restorations, and likewise, glass ionomer is used most often to repair glass ionomer restorations. Only 54% of respondents use amalgam to repair amalgam restorations. Surface treatments varied among the 3 available restorations types.ConclusionsMany dentists are actively making restoration repairs, but choosing clinical scenarios to make these repairs is material dependent.Practical ImplicationsThe repair of defective restorations is an acceptable and more conservative alternative than restoration replacement, and its success depends on proper case selection, material, and technique.     

Amalgam or composite in pediatric dentistry: Analysis of private insurance claims data

BackgroundAdvancements in dental materials and changing parental preferences are modifying the frequency of use of restorative materials. This insurance claims analysis examined the trends in the use of amalgam and resin composite in the United States.MethodsCommercial dental insurance claims were analyzed to compare 505,994 restorations, corresponding with procedure codes for 1-, 2-, and 3-surface amalgam or resin restorations. Paid claims collected nationwide from January 2010 through March 2020 were analyzed. Data for children aged 3 through 12 years were used, resulting in 219,632 unique patient identification numbers. Generalized estimating equation models applied to logistic regression were used. All tests were conducted using a 2-sided 5% significance level.ResultsIn general, girls were less likely to receive amalgam than boys. A $20,000 increase in median household income was associated with a 16% decrease in the odds of amalgam being placed. Pediatric dentists (performing 15.1% of all restorations) were not as likely as general dentists (18.4%) to use amalgam. Having more surfaces in a restoration was associated with higher probability of amalgam placement. The percentage of amalgam restorations was higher for 2010 (26.9%) than for 2011 through 2020, and this pattern recurred in several of the years analyzed. Generally, patient age at time of amalgam restoration increased over time.ConclusionThe use of amalgam is trending down; the sharpest decline was noted in 2014. Pediatric dentists were less likely to use amalgam than general dentists. Girls and patients with higher socioeconomic status were less likely to have amalgam.Practical ImplicationsThe findings of this study can inform and support clinical decisions and the formation of public policies.     

Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice

The ages of 6,761 restorations replaced in permanent teeth, 6,088 in adults > or =19 years of age and 673 in adolescents < or =18 years, were available for analyses. The results showed that the median age of amalgam restorations in adults was 11 years and that of resin-based composite restorations 8 years. This difference in longevity was significant (P = 0.000 l). The median age of failed conventional glass ionomer restorations in adults was 4 years and for resin-modified glass ionomer 2 years. In adolescents, the median longevity of failed amalgam restorations was 5 years and that of composite restorations 3 years, while both types of glass ionomers had a median longevity of 2 years. The data were subdivided based on clinician gender and practice setting. The results showed that the median age of amalgam and composite restorations replaced Its male clinicians was higher than that for female clinicians irrespective of clinical setting. The median age of amalgam and composite restorations replaced by salaried dentists was significantly lower than that by private practitioners. Minor differences were noted in longevity of restorations between male and female patients. The age of replaced restorations was shortest for the group of clinicians with the least clinical experience and highest for those that graduated > or = 30 years ago.     

Impact of dental restorations and removable prostheses on potentially malignant oral mucosal disorders in the general population

Statement of problemDental restorations and removable dental prostheses have been considered as risk factors for potentially malignant disorders of the oral mucosa. It remains unclear whether amalgam, composite resins, and prosthesis materials can induce potentially malignant disorders.PurposeThe purpose of this clinical study was to determine the relationship between the presence of amalgam and composite resin restorations, crowns and fixed partial dentures, and removable prostheses in potentially malignant disorders.Material and methodsThe data of 6041 participants in the population-based Studies of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) were accessed. Potentially malignant disorders had been clinically diagnosed by calibrated dentists and documented with photographs. Dental treatment was subdivided into restored and replaced teeth. Dental restorations were subclassified as buccal composite resin or amalgam restorations. Prosthetic treatment was subclassified into removable partial or complete prostheses and definitive restorations with crowns and fixed partial dentures.ResultsIn the maxilla, participants with removable prostheses had a higher incidence of potentially malignant disorders than participants not undergoing treatment with removable prostheses (OR 2.12; 95% CI: 1.08-4.18), but not in the mandible (OR 1.30; 95% CI: 0.67-2.53). The surfaces with composite resin restorations were associated with a slightly higher risk of mucosal lesions than those without the restorations (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.07). No significant association was found between amalgam restorations and mucosal lesions.ConclusionsParticipants with removable prostheses have a higher risk of potentially malignant disorders. Composite resin restorations are associated with a higher risk of mucosal lesions, whereas no significant association was found between amalgam restorations and mucosal lesions.     

Reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in posterior teeth of young Finnish adults

Using dentist characteristics, our aim was to evaluate the reasons for replacements of fillings, the age of failed restorations in the posterior teeth of young adults, and replacement rates. Altogether 205 patient records from the Public Oral Health Service of the City of Vantaa, Finland were evaluated. Patient age was restricted to between 25 and 30 years and type of tooth to posterior teeth only (third molars excluded). Information collected from the records included the patient's date of birth, latest DMFS and DMF, and the code for background data on the dentist. Details of each filled premolar and molar included the restorative material, location, and surface coverage of filling(s). The age of replacement of filling in premolar(s) or molar(s) was screened retrospectively from patient records. The total number of filled premolars and molars was 1873, with 1969 fillings. Forty percent of the patients had undergone replacement of filling in premolar(s) or molar(s). In all, 140 replacements had been made, accounting for 6.9% of amalgam fillings and 8.5% of tooth-colored fillings. Secondary caries, along with fractures, overhangs, and marginal discrepancy, was the most common reason for replacement. The mean age of failed amalgam fillings was 8.9 years (SD 5.2) and of failed tooth-colored fillings 2.4 years (SD 1.6). In the public sector, female dentists form the majority and their replacement rate for amalgam fillings was twice that of male dentists (7.6% vs 3.2%; P = 0.01).     

Reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorative materials in Brazil.

OBJECT: The aim of this study was to report the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations in private general dental practices in Brazil. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Thirty-seven practitioners recorded information regarding 16 consecutive direct restorations placed by themselves in a 4-week period. The information recorded reported the patient's age, gender, tooth number, the class of restorations, the restorative material used, and the reasons for placement and replacement of amalgam and tooth-colored restorations. The data were statistically analyzed through chi-square tests. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 37 years, with female patients occurring more frequently. Of all the restorations placed (n = 551), 39.75% were first-time placements, while 60.25% were replacements. For first-time restorations, the primary reason for placement was primary caries, followed by noncarious tooth substance loss. For amalgam restorations, the main reason for replacement was to obtain improved esthetic appearance with a tooth-colored material. For restorations of resin composite, secondary caries was the principal reason of failure. The resin composite was statistically (P <.01) the most indicated material (88.93%) for the placement and replacement of restorations. CONCLUSION: Replacements have been the main reason for performing direct restorations, and the chosen restoration material was resin composite.     

Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland

Ninety-one Icelandic practicing dentists (51% response rate) provided information related to the reasons for placement and replacement of 8,395 restorations and 741 sealants in 5,997 patients. Information included the patient's gender and age, the clinician's gender and experience in years since graduation, the defined criteria for replacement of restorations, the estimated past use of material in five-year increments and the records of 100 consecutively placed restorations. The materials used include composite (52.7%), amalgam (29.2%), glass ionomer (9.5%), resin-modified glass ionomer (7.1%) and other materials (1.4%). Although material selection was independent of the clinician's gender, female patients received more composite and fewer amalgam restorations than their male counterparts. Reasons for placing restorations comprised replacement of failed restorations (47.2%), primary caries (45.3%) and non-carious defects (7.5%). Secondary caries was the main reason for replacement for all types of restorations. Chi square analysis related to the dependence between the reasons for replacement and clinician's experience showed that more experienced clinicians recorded a lower frequency of secondary caries than less experienced ones (p<0.0001), while the diagnoses of discoloration and fracture of restorations increased with the clinicians' experience (p<0.0001).     

Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults

The aim of this study was to obtain information on the restorative dental care of adults in Finland. A random sample of private dentists was drawn from the register, and in spring 2000 they were sent a questionnaire requesting them to record information for each restoration placed during one ordinary working day. A total of 800 dentists were contacted and 548 responded. The dentists reported placement of 3,455 restorations. Of these, 5% were Class I, 36% were Class II, 13% were Class III, 9% were Class IV, 21% were Class V, and 16% were extensive restorations including 4 or more surfaces. Overall, composite resin was the most common restorative material, and it was used in 79% of the restorations, whereas amalgam was used in 50%, compomers in 4%, and glass ionomers (either conventional or resin-modified) in 7% of cases. In 5%, of the cases, the tooth was restored with indirect restorative methods, using either gold or ceramic materials. Of the treatments, 65% were replacements of previous restorations. Secondary caries was the most common reason for replacement (36%, 52%, and 41% for composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam, respectively). Other common reasons were fractures of the tooth or restoration (23%, 11%, and 22% for composite, glass ionomer, and amalgam, respectively) and lost composite restorations (16%). The median age of failed restorations was 15 years for amalgam, 6 years for composite, and 7 years for conventional glass ionomer. Although the longevity of tooth coloured restorations was shorter than that of amalgam, comparisons with our previous studies indicate improved survival periods for tooth coloured materials.