a retrospective study of stainless steel crowns as a … · 2016-12-14 · ii retrospective study...
TRANSCRIPT
A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF STAINLESS STEEL CROWNS AS A POSTERIOR PERMANENT TOOTH
RESTORATION
by
Alison Sigal
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Pediatric Dentistry
Graduate Department of Dentistry University of Toronto
© Copyright by Alison Sigal (2016)
ii
RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF STAINLESS STEEL CROWNS AS A POSTERIOR PERMANENT TOOTH
RESTORATION Alison Sigal
Master of Science
Pediatric Dentistry, University of Toronto
2016 Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective cohort study assessed the long-term clinical and radiographic
outcomes of the stainless steel crown (SSC) as a posterior permanent tooth restoration.
Methods: Study included 271 patients registered at Mount Sinai Hospital’s Dentistry Clinic for
Persons with Special Needs. A total of 2621 posterior restorations were documented: 766 SSCs,
1651 amalgams, and 204 composite resins. Radiographic analysis of SSCs included 127
bitewing, and 118 periapical films.
Results: Ten year survival rate for new SSC and amalgam restorations was 79.2% and 63.5%,
respectively. Ninety-one SSC failures included loose/lost SSCs (24) and chronic periodontal
disease (25). Ninety-three percent of alveolar bone loss measurements from mesial and distal
sites were <2mm and classified as healthy. All pre and post SSC PA’s had healthy periapical
scores recorded over an average duration of 8.4 years.
Conclusion: SSCs represent a cost-effective, durable and preferred treatment option for the
restoration of the posterior permanent dentition.
iii
Dedicated to the Two Greatest and Most Influential Men in my Life…
My Father, Dr. Michael J. Sigal
And My Husband, Brian M.S. Granby
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my supervisors, Drs. P. Andrews and A. Azarpazhooh for sharing your passion for research,
and guiding me throughout my MSc journey.
To my committee members, Drs. K. Titley and H. Tenenbaum for your encouragement, insight,
and care. It was an honour to have you on my committee.
To Dr. Ellen Maki for your invaluable statistical wizardry, patience, and support.
To Trevor Thang who turned my idea of a unique triple-decker database, into a brilliant reality.
To Drs. M. Goldberg and A. Moncarz for your time in the standardization process of
radiographic observations.
To my Paediatric family & Friends from both near and far…From the bottom of my heart, I
thank you for your endless love, support, and encouragement.
To my Mom and Dad whom have taught me life’s most valuable lessons. You are the greatest of
role models, and your love and support have made me who I am today. Thank you for always
believing in me, and teaching me that no dream is too big. Your love, strength, and passion for
following your heart, will always be an inspiration.
Finally, to my husband and best friend, Brian Granby. You are the love and best part of my life;
words could never express my gratitude for your endless love and support. You are my constant
motivation and inspiration. Together we can – forever and always.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………..…iii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ixx
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii
List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... xiiii
A. Review of Literature ................................................................................................................. 1
1. History of the Stainless Steel Crown Restoration ................................................................... 1
2. Indications and Utilization of SSC Restorations .................................................................... 3
(a) Primary Dentition: Indications ....................................................................................... 3
(b) Primary Dentition: Utilization of SSCs ......................................................................... 4
(c) Permanent Dentition: Indications ................................................................................... 6
(d) Permanent Dentition: Utilization of SSCs ..................................................................... 7
3. Emerging Applications for the Use of SSC Restorations ....................................................... 8
(a) Persons with Special Needs ........................................................................................... 9
(b) Adjunctive Use of General Anesthetic .......................................................................... 9
(c) Geriatric Populations .................................................................................................... 11
(d) Persons with Limited Finances or Dental Coverage .................................................... 11
4. Methods Used in Previous Clinical Studies of Restorative Materials .................................. 13
(a) Clinical Outcomes for Stainless Steel Crown Restorations ......................................... 13
(b) Clinical Outcomes for Multisurface Intra Coronal Direct Restorations ...................... 17
(c) Lab Fabricated Crown Clinical Outcomes ................................................................... 19
5) Radiographic Evaluation and Outcomes .............................................................................. 22
vi
(a) Pulpal Status ................................................................................................................. 22
(b) Periodontal Status ........................................................................................................ 24
6. Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................. 27
B. Expected Outcomes ................................................................................................................. 29
C. Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 30
D. Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................... 31
1. Sample .................................................................................................................................. 31
2. Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 32
(a) Part 1: Demographic and Dental Information Collection ............................................ 32
(b) Part 2: Radiographic Assessment of SSC Restorations ............................................... 37
3. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 40
E. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 42
1. Pilot Study Agreement Analysis and Standardization .......................................................... 42
2. Part 1: Patient Demographics and Dental Treatment ........................................................... 42
(a) Medical History ............................................................................................................ 42
(b) Dental History .............................................................................................................. 43
(c) Behaviour ..................................................................................................................... 43
(d) Dental Restorations ...................................................................................................... 44
(e) Failed Dental Restorations ........................................................................................... 45
(i) Failed Dental Restorations: Stainless Steel Crowns ......................................... 45
(ii) Failed Dental Restorations: Amalgam Restorations ........................................ 47
(iii) Failed Dental Restorations: Composite Resin Restorations ........................... 48
(iv) Failed Dental Restorations: New versus Pre-Existing .................................... 50
(v) Summary Table ................................................................................................ 50
(f) Ten Year Survival Rate Estimate ................................................................................. 50
vii
(g) Crude Success Rates for New SSC and Amalgam Restorations ................................. 54
2. Part 2: Radiographic Assessment of SSC Restorations ........................................................ 55
(a) Alveolar Bone Loss Measurements ............................................................................. 56
(b) Periapical Index (PAI) Scores and Pulpal Status of SSC restored teeth ...................... 57
F. Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 58
1. Stainless Steel Crown Restorations ...................................................................................... 58
(a) Stainless Steel Crown Reported Failures ..................................................................... 60
(b) Stainless Steel Crown Survival Analysis ..................................................................... 62
2. Conventional Restorative Treatments ................................................................................... 64
(a) Conventional Restoration Reported Failures ............................................................... 64
(b) Survival Analysis of Conventional Restorations ......................................................... 65
(c) Replacement of Conventional Restorations with SSCs ............................................... 67
3. Radiographic Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 68
(a) Pulpal Status of SSC Restored Teeth ........................................................................... 68
(b) Alveolar Bone Measurements of SSC Restored Teeth ................................................ 69
(c) Limitations of Radiographic Evaluation ...................................................................... 70
4. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 70
(a) Agreement Analysis ..................................................................................................... 70
(b) Inferential Statistics ..................................................................................................... 71
(c) Cox Proportional Hazards Model and Logrank Tests .................................................. 71
(d) Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards (PH) Regression for Each Restoration Type ....................................................................................................................... 73
5. Demographics and Implication for Practice ......................................................................... 74
6. Limitations and Strengths ..................................................................................................... 76
7. Future Directions .................................................................................................................. 77
G. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 79
viii
Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................................... 81
Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 172
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Study Population and Gender Distribution ................................................................ 81
Table 2. Study Population Age Distribution Summary ........................................................... 82
Table 3. Distribution of Medical Conditions amongst Study Population ................................ 84
Table 4. Most Common Medical Conditions amongst Study Population ................................ 88
Table 5. Number of Patients with Multiple Co-Morbidities .................................................... 88
Table 6. Distribution of Medications Prescribed amongst Study Population .......................... 89
Table 7. Most Commonly Prescribed Medications amongst Study Population ...................... 90
Table 8. Insurance Coverage Distribution ............................................................................... 90
Table 9. Caries Risk, Oral Hygiene and Recall Frequency ..................................................... 91
Table 10. Frankl Scale of Patient Behaviour/Cooperation ...................................................... 92
Table 11. Number of Subjects, Teeth, and Restorations .......................................................... 93
Table 13. Number of Male Subjects, Teeth, and Restorations ................................................ 97
Table 14. Number of Female Subjects, Teeth, and Restorations ............................................. 98
Table 15. Number of Restorations by Tooth Location ............................................................ 99
Table 16. Number of Restorations by Specific Tooth ........................................................... 102
Table 17. Distribution of All Restorations by Tooth Location and Male Gender ................. 105
Table 18. Distribution of All Restorations by Tooth Location and Female Gender .............. 106
Table 19. Number of Censored Observations including All Restoration Types ................... 107
Table 20: Distribution of Diagnoses for Placement of SSC and Amalgam Restorations ...... 108
Table 23. Distribution of SSC Occlusal Perforations ............................................................ 110
Table 24. Diagnoses for Specific Amalgam Restoration Failures Replaced with New Restorations ..................................................................................................................... 111
Table 27. Diagnoses for Composite Resin Restoration Failures Replaced with New Restorations ..................................................................................................................... 112
x
Table 28. Number and Distribution of All New Restorations ............................................... 113
Table 29. Distribution and Number of All Pre-existing Restorations .................................... 115
Table 31. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for All Stainless Steel Crown Restorations 117
Table 32. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for New SSC Restorations ......................... 119
Table 33. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for Pre-existing SSC Restorations ............. 121
Table 34. Follow-up by Subject and by Restoration Type for All Restorations .................... 123
Table 35. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for All Amalgam Restorations ................... 126
Table 36. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for New Amalgam Restorations ................ 128
Table 37. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for Pre-existing Amalgam Restorations .... 130
Table 38. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for Pre-existing Composite Resin Restorations ..................................................................................................................... 132
Table 39. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New SSC Restorations by Age Group .. 135
Table 40: Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New Amalgam Restorations by Age Group ............................................................................................................................... 137
Table 41. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New SSC Restorations by Gender ........ 139
Table 42. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New Amalgam Restorations by Gender 141
Table 43. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New SSC Restorations by Location (Upper vs. Lower) ........................................................................................................... 143
Table 44. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New Amalgam Restorations by Location (Upper vs. Lower) ............................................................................................ 145
Table 45. Crude Success Rates for New SSC and Amalgam Restorations ........................... 147
Table 47. Duration Between Pre and Post SSC Periapical Radiographs ............................... 148
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gender Distribution of Study Population ................................................................. 81
Figure 2. Age of Study Population as of March 31st, 2015 ..................................................... 82
Figure 3. Age of Study Population at First Clinic Visit ........................................................... 83
Figure 4. Age of Study Population at Time of First Restoration ............................................. 83
Figure 5. Number of Teeth Restored Per Subject by Type of Restoration ............................. 94
Figure 6. Number of Restorations Per Subject by Type of Restoration .................................. 94
Figure 7. Number of Restorations Per Tooth ........................................................................... 95
Figure 8. Number of Restorations Recorded by Type ............................................................. 96
Figure 9. Number of Restorations by Tooth Location – Upper/Lower ................................. 100
Figure 10. Number of Restorations by Tooth Location – Left/Right .................................... 100
Figure 11. Number of Restorations by Tooth Location – Upper/Lower and Left/Right ....... 101
Figure 12. Number of Restorations by Specific Tooth for All Restoration Types. ............... 103
Figure 13. Number of Restorations by Specific Tooth for SSC Restorations.. ..................... 103
Figure 14. Number of Restorations by Specific Tooth for Amalgam Restorations. ............. 104
Figure 15. Number of Restorations by Specific Tooth for Composite Resin Restorations ... 104
Figure 16. Number of Failures Recorded by the End of Study for All Restoration Types ... 109
Figure 17. Non-censored Number and Distribution of New Restoration Failures. ............... 114
Figure 18. Number of Failures by End of Study for All Pre-existing Restorations .............. 116
Figure 19. Survival Curve and 95% CI for All SSC Restorations ......................................... 118
Figure 20. Survival Curve and 95% CI for New SSC Restorations ...................................... 120
Figure 21. Survival Curve and 95% CI for Pre-existing SSC Restorations .......................... 122
Figure 22. Follow-up Time in 5-year Increments by Subject. ............................................... 124
Figure 23. Follow-up Time in 5-year Increments by Restoration Type for All Restorations.. ................................................................................................................... 125
xii
Figure 24. Survival Curve and 95% CI for All Amalgam Restorations ................................ 127
Figure 25. Survival Curve and 95% CI for New Amalgam Restorations .............................. 129
Figure 26. Survival Curve and 95% CI for Pre-existing Amalgam ....................................... 131
Figure 27. Survival Curve and 95% CI for Pre-existing Composite Resin Restorations ..... 133
Figure 28. Survival Curve Comparison Between All Amalgam and SSC Restorations ....... 134
Figure 31. Survival of New SSC Restorations by Different Age Groups at Time of Placement ........................................................................................................................ 136
Figure 32. Survival of New Amalgam Restorations by Different Age Groups at Time of Placement ........................................................................................................................ 138
Figure 33. Survival of New SSC Restorations by Gender ..................................................... 140
Figure 34. Survival of New Amalgam Restorations by Gender ............................................ 142
Figure 35. Survival of New SSC Restorations by Location (Upper vs. Lower) of Placement ........................................................................................................................ 144
Figure 36. Survival of New Amalgam Restorations by Location (Upper vs. Lower) of Placement ........................................................................................................................ 146
Figure 37. Crude Success Rates for New SSC and Amalgam Restorations .......................... 147
xiii
List of Appendices
APPENDIX 1: DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................... 149
A) Screenshots of Database for Appendix 1 Data Collection ................................................ 149
B) Patient Demographics ........................................................................................................ 150
C) Family History ................................................................................................................... 150
D) Medical Information .......................................................................................................... 151
i) Central Nervous System ............................................................................................... 151
ii) Cardiovascular System ................................................................................................ 152
iii) Respiratory System .................................................................................................... 153
iv) Gastrointestinal System .............................................................................................. 154
v) Immune System ........................................................................................................... 155
vi) Genito-Urinary System .............................................................................................. 156
vii) Endocrine System ..................................................................................................... 156
viii) Musculoskeletal System .......................................................................................... 156
ix) Dermatology ............................................................................................................... 157
E) Medications at the Present Time ........................................................................................ 157
F) Previous Surgical Experience ............................................................................................ 158
G) Dental Information ............................................................................................................ 158
APPENDIX 2: DENTAL TREATMENT DATABASE ......................................................... 162
A) Screenshots of Database for Appendix 2 Data Collection ................................................ 162
B) Dental Treatment Data Collection ..................................................................................... 163
APPENDIX 3: RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT DATABASE ......................................... 167
A) Screenshots of Database for Appendix 3 Data Collection ................................................ 167
APPENDIX 4: PERIAPICAL INDEX REFERENCE ........................................................... 170
xiv
Reference Radiographs/Line Drawings with Periapical Index (PAI) Scores ......................... 170
APPENDIX 5: PILOT STUDY AGREEMENT ANALYSIS ................................................ 171
1
A. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. History of the Stainless Steel Crown Restoration
The preformed metal crown (PMC), more commonly known in North America as the stainless
steel crown (SSC), was first described in 1950 by Engel and Humphrey (Engel, 1950). By
definition SSCs are prefabricated full coverage crown forms that are adapted to individual teeth
and cemented with a biocompatible luting agent (Titley and Farkouh, 2001). The goal of the
restoration is to reestablish the coronal tooth structure lost due to caries, fracture, or
malformation and maintain a healthy periodontium, vertical dimension and arch length (Croll,
1999).
Since 1950, several design modifications to the SSC have been made to simplify the fitting
procedure and improve the morphological features of the crown. Placement of a SSC has since
been recognized as a relatively simple restorative treatment modality to employ requiring
minimal tooth preparation and crown adaptation (Fieldman and Cohen, 1979; Titley and
Farkouh, 2001). In addition, SSCs have proven to be extremely durable, relatively inexpensive
and available for the restoration of both primary and permanent dentitions (Randall, 2002; Seale,
2002; Seale and Randall, 2015). Each of these attributes has contributed to the success and
recognition of the SSC as a highly effective primary molar restoration (Kindelan et al., 2008).
Between, 1975 and 2002, several retrospective studies have examined the longevity of SSC
restorations in the primary dentition. The reported outcomes have demonstrated that SSCs
consistently outperformed: multi-surface amalgam (Braff, 1975; Dawson et al., 1981; Einwag
and Dunninger, 1996; Messer and Levering, 1988), glass ionomer cements, and composite resin
2
restorations (Al-Eheideb and Herman, 2003; Drummond et al., 2004; Eriksson et al., 1988;
O'Sullivan and Curzon, 1991; Papathanasiou et al., 1994; Tate et al., 2002) on primary molars.
The superiority was observed consistently despite the fact that the investigations were carried out
in heterogeneous patient populations, using crowns from various manufacturers, and in several
different centers.
Recently, Seale and Randall (2015) published a systematic literature review, updating the use
and recommendations of stainless steel crowns. Sixty-one papers were assessed, consisting of 24
clinical studies, 3 case reports, 21 reviews and 13 in vitro studies. Stainless steel crowns continue
to be superior in both durability and longevity as compared to amalgam and resin-based
restorations in the primary dentition. Minimal evidence exists to support the economic value of
multi-surface restorations over SSCs; and for children requiring general anesthesia, SSC
restorations should be considered the treatment of choice for primary molars. This is supported
by the widely accepted advantages of SSC restorations, that include: full coronal coverage
reducing potential of recurrent caries, strength and long-term durability with minimal
maintenance (Seale and Randall, 2015). As a result, in pediatric dentistry practices, SSCs
continue to be the restoration of choice for moderate to severely compromised primary molar
teeth (Dawson et al., 1981; McKnight-Hanes et al., 1991; Messer and Levering, 1988; Seale and
Randall, 2015; Titley and Farkouh, 2001).
3
2. Indications and Utilization of SSC Restorations
(a) Primary Dentition: Indications
Numerous authors have published the indications for use of SSCs in the primary dentition, but to
date, a single comprehensive list has not been agreed upon. The indications described in the
reported studies include:
i) Following pulp therapy (Albers, 1979; Allen, 1966; Brook and King, 1982; Croll, 1993, 1999;
Croll and Riesenberger, 1986; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Goldberg, 1969; Henderson,
1973; Hinding, 1976; Mink and Bennett, 1968; More and Pink, 1973; Myers, 1976; Nash, 1981;
Page, 1973; Rapp, 1966; Seale and Randall, 2015).
ii) Restoration of multisurface caries in persons with high caries risk (Allen, 1966; Brook and
King, 1982; Croll, 1999; Croll and Riesenberger, 1986; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989;
Fieldman and Cohen, 1979; Goldberg, 1969; Henderson, 1973; Hinding, 1976; Mink and
Bennett, 1968; More and Pink, 1973; Myers, 1976; Nash, 1981; Rapp, 1966; Seale and Randall,
2015).
iii) Restoration of primary teeth with developmental enamel or dentinal defects (Allen, 1966;
Brook and King, 1982; Croll, 1993, 1999; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Fieldman and Cohen,
1979; Goldberg, 1969; Hinding, 1976; Mink and Bennett, 1968; More and Pink, 1973; Myers,
1976; Nash, 1981; Page, 1973; Seale and Randall, 2015).
iv) Clinical scenarios where amalgam is likely to fail (i.e. caries extending beyond clinical crown
line angles) (Brook and King, 1982; Henderson, 1973; Nash, 1981; Pinkerton, 2001).
4
v) Treatment of traumatic dental fracture not suitable for an intra- coronal restoration (Croll,
1999; Croll and Riesenberger, 1986; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Goldberg, 1969; Mink and
Bennett, 1968; More and Pink, 1973; Rapp, 1966; Seale and Randall, 2015).
vi) Teeth with extensive wear (M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Fieldman and Cohen, 1979).
vii) Abutment for space maintainer (Allen, 1966; Brook and King, 1982; Croll, 1999; Croll and
Riesenberger, 1986; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Fieldman and Cohen, 1979; Goldberg,
1969; Mink and Bennett, 1968; More and Pink, 1973; Rapp, 1966).
viii) Persons with special needs or children who require the use of general anesthesia (GA) for
their dental care (Al-Eheideb and Herman, 2003; Burtner and Dicks, 1994; Drummond et al.,
2004; Melville et al., 1981; Nunn et al., 1995; Seale and Randall, 2015; Titley and Farkouh,
2001)
(b) Primary Dentition: Utilization of SSCs
Despite extensive support for the use of SSCs, many authors report that this treatment approach
for the restoration of the primary posterior dentition is underutilized by general dentists (Berman,
1994; Casamassimo, 1994; Croll and Killian, 1992; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Page,
1973). The reasons for underutilization include poor or absent undergraduate didactic training in
the use of SSCs, lack of clinical experience in the placement of SSCs, and the belief that the
provision of a SSC is a complex procedure (Berman, 1994; Casamassimo, 1994; Croll and
Killian, 1992; M. Duggal et al., 1995; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Page, 1973; Seale and
Randall, 2015). In reality, the SSC restoration is a straightforward technique (Berman, 1994; M.
5
S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Full et al., 1974) and is often simpler to complete and more cost-
effective than a Class II direct restoration (Kindelan et al., 2008).
Given the longevity, reliability and effectiveness of SSCs (Roberts and Sherriff, 1990), the
British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD) has stated that SSCs are the restoration of choice
for primary molars with extensive caries and/or require pulp therapy (Threlfall et al., 2005). In
spite of this clear policy statement, data from the Dental Practice Board indicated that general
dental practitioners (GDPs) continue to underutilize SSCs. National Health Service (NHS)
general dental practice data in 2002 recorded that 3,129 SSCs were placed on primary teeth by
GDPs, while 25,370 vital pulpotomies and 59,512 non-vital primary root canals had been
undertaken on primary teeth during the same period (Threlfall et al., 2005). Given the
recommendations made by the BSPD for restorative management of teeth treated for pulpal
disease, only 3.7% of teeth were managed properly, having received the recommended SSC
restoration. In this study, the GDPs provided personal and practical reasons for not placing SSCs.
Many believed they were unnecessarily durable for the primary dentition, not cosmetically
acceptable, and that glass ionomer was quicker, more clinically acceptable and tolerable for their
patients. Some GDPs reported they had not received sufficient training, while others believed the
reimbursement to be inadequate (Threlfall et al., 2005).
McKnight-Hanes et al. (1991) compared general dentists’ and pediatric dentists’ treatment
recommendations for primary teeth based on radiographic and clinical information. For these
cases, irrespective of whether pulp therapy was recommended, general dentists frequently
recommended restoring teeth with amalgam, while pediatric dentists recommended SSCs. The
explanation provided for such observed differences related to the practitioner’s education and
experience. The advanced education of pediatric dentists was noted as providing greater
6
familiarity with SSC techniques, and an awareness of the limited life span of complex amalgams
in primary teeth (Dawson et al., 1981; McKnight-Hanes et al., 1991; Messer and Levering,
1988).
It has been suggested that postgraduate training, and in particular hands-on training courses, may
be the most effective way to encourage dentists to re-evaluate their restorative techniques and
increase the use of SSC restorations for the primary dentition (Kindelan et al., 2008).
(c) Permanent Dentition: Indications
In permanent posterior teeth, the main advantage for the use of SSC’s is to provide full-coronal
interim coverage that is effective, durable, and reliable while circumstances preclude potential
additional treatment (i.e. lab fabricated crowns, endodontic treatment, etc.) (Croll, 1999). With
respect to the use of the term, ‘interim’ above, this refers to any time period ranging from a few
months, to a decade and beyond (Croll, 1999). There is a paucity of literature regarding the
indications for use of SSCs as restorations for permanent molars or premolars. Some examples
that have been proposed include:
i) Interim restoration of grossly decayed or traumatized teeth (Croll, 1999; Croll and Castaldi,
1978; Goldberg, 1969; Gordon, 1979; Kimmelman and Riesner, 1977; Mink and Bennett, 1968;
Page, 1973; Radcliffe and Cullen, 1991; Roberts, 1983; Seale and Randall, 2015).
ii) Interim restoration of teeth being considered for orthodontic extraction (Brook and King,
1982; Croll, 1987).
7
iii) Medium-term, economical restoration of permanent teeth (Croll, 1987; Gordon, 1979;
Murray and Madden, 1997).
iv) Teeth with developmental enamel or dentinal defects (Brook and King, 1982; Croll, 1999;
Croll and Castaldi, 1978; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Kimmelman and Riesner, 1977;
Mink and Bennett, 1968; Radcliffe and Cullen, 1991; Seale and Randall, 2015).
v) Restoration of a partially erupted permanent molar (Brook and King, 1982; Croll, 1999; Rapp,
1966).
vi) Restoration of teeth in persons with special needs whom require the use of general
anesthesia for dental care (Burtner and Dicks, 1994; Melville et al., 1981; Nunn et al., 1995;
Titley and Farkouh, 2001).
vii) Persons who are uncooperative and/or from remote areas without regular access to dental
care (Titley and Farkouh, 2001).
(d) Permanent Dentition: Utilization of SSCs
Despite the multitude of recommendations and applications for the use of SSCs as a restorative
treatment option for the permanent dentition, there is a paucity of literature reporting clinical
outcomes. The majority of the published research regarding SSC restorations in the permanent
dentition is based upon anecdotal evidence, case reports or studies with small sample sizes and
minimal follow up periods.
Zagdwon, Fayle and Pollard (2003) compared SSCs and nickel-chrome (NiCr) alloy cast crowns
for restoration of permanent first molars with severe enamel defects. Forty-two restorations were
8
placed (19 SSCs, 23 NiCr crowns) in 17 adolescents with a mean follow up of 17 months. There
was no statistically significant difference between the two types of restorations in terms of
quality or longevity. However, the authors concluded that although it was possible to do a
minimal preparation design for the NiCr crowns, it was more technique sensitive, required
multiple visits and was less cost effective as compared to the traditional SSC (Zagdwon et al.,
2003).
Roberts and Sherriff (1990) evaluated 43 permanent molar SSCs with conventional restorations.
This study reported the overall replacement over a 10-year follow-up of SSCs was 2.3% (i.e.
almost 98% of SSCs placed did not have to be re-treated). The primary reason for failure was
due to occlusal perforation. In comparison, 11% of amalgam restorations failed due to recurrent
decay (Roberts and Sherriff, 1990).
Despite the promising results, both aforementioned studies had very small sample sizes of
permanent molar SSC restorations, and were therefore not generalizable to the profession at large
(Roberts and Sherriff, 1990; Zagdwon et al., 2003).
3. Emerging Applications for the Use of SSC Restorations
Stainless steel crown restorations for the permanent dentition represent an important treatment
option for several populations. These include: persons with special needs, persons requiring
adjunctive use of general anesthetic, geriatric populations, and persons with limited
finances/dental coverage (Bohaty and Spencer, 1992; Burtner and Dicks, 1994; Melville et al.,
1981; Nunn et al., 1995; Seale and Randall, 2015; Titley and Farkouh, 2001).
9
(a) Persons with Special Needs
Adults with special needs are known to have high risk for and prevalence of caries and as such
are highly likely to have SSC restorations placed on their permanent posterior teeth (Chohayeb,
1985; Tesini, 1981). A person with special needs is defined as any individual with a congenital
or acquired impairment that causes long-term adverse effects upon their ability to perform daily
activities typical for their stage of development (Accardo et al., 2002; Merry and Edwards, 2002;
World Health Organization., 2001). The adverse effects or functional limitations may include
cognitive, receptive, expressive language, learning, and/or motor ability deficits (Accardo et al.,
2002; Merry and Edwards, 2002; World Health Organization., 2001).
Stainless steel crown restorations for the permanent posterior dentition are recommended for the
subgroup of individuals who are unable to maintain good oral hygiene and who have extensive
dental caries (Chohayeb, 1985). The full coronal coverage that SSCs supply virtually ensures
that recurrent decay will not occur and, their smooth surfaces render the tooth easier to clean
using routine oral hygiene procedures compared to that of other restorative treatments
(Chohayeb, 1985; Seale and Randall, 2015; Titley and Farkouh, 2001). As such, the placement
of SSC restorations could significantly reduce the incidence of recurrent caries and increase the
likelihood of maintaining the patient’s existing dentition (Titley and Farkouh, 2001).
(b) Adjunctive use of General Anesthetic
The adjunctive use of general anesthetic for dental care has been generally accepted and
reported. The published indications include (Bohaty and Spencer, 1992; Melville et al., 1981;
Nunn et al., 1995; Titley and Farkouh, 2001):
10
i) Extreme non-cooperation, anxiety and fearfulness of the child
ii) Persons with medical conditions who require significant dental care
iii) Persons with special needs
iv) Persons with extensive dental treatment needs but who are from remote areas and therefore
have poor or no access to regular dental care
v) Persons with an allergy to local anesthetics
vi) Very young children with extensive caries
The availability of GA facilities to dentists and their patients is limited and the waiting lists can
be extensive. As a result, the majority of patients in need of a GA for the provision of their dental
care, especially those without regular access to dental care, often present with large multi-surface
carious lesions (Burtner and Dicks, 1994; Chohayeb, 1985; Tesini, 1981; Titley and Farkouh,
2001). The frequency that such patients would need to be re-exposed to general anesthetic is
directly related to the development of new caries and/or the need to re-treat failed restorations
(Al-Eheideb and Herman, 2003; Drummond et al., 2004; Nunn et al., 1995; Seale, 2002). As
such, a strong economic argument can be made for the use of SSCs based on their longevity and
full coronal coverage that would reduce the frequency of re-treatment. Given the known risks
associated with the use of GA, there is also a strong biomedical argument for use of SSCs based
on their longevity that would reduce the potential frequency of re-exposure (to GA) (Al-Eheideb
and Herman, 2003; Drummond et al., 2004; Seale, 2002).
11
(c) Geriatric Populations
In 1998, Ettinger et al. documented a growing indication for SSC placement in the permanent
posterior dentition of geriatric patients. In most of the developed world, people are living longer
and retaining their natural dentition. However these patients often require full-coronal
restorations to replace large failing restorations; a treatment approach that might be beyond their
ability to pay, due to the average lower income levels demonstrated in the aged (Statistics
Canada, 2014). It is noteworthy then, that a properly adapted SSC can be a practical, less
expensive, convenient, and effective alternative to a traditional laboratory-processed crown. In
addition the placement of a SSC requires a single relatively short appointment versus several
longer appointments, which represents a significant advantage in a population that often find
tolerating repeated and/or prolonged procedures difficult. Ultimately, SSCs could preserve
patients’ posterior dentition (Ettinger et al., 1998) due to their affordability since the only other
affordable alternative might in fact be extraction.
(d) Persons with Limited Finances or Dental Coverage
There are many individuals who require extensive dental care but who have limited finances, no
dental insurance, and/or are receiving social assistance.
Limited Finances: Statistics Canada’s most recent census report from 2011, classified 8.8% or
2.96 million Canadians as low-income individuals (Statistics Canada., 2011).
Dental Insurance: The Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) administered by Statistics
Canada collected data from about 6,000 people in 15 communities selected randomly across
Canada between March 2007 and February 2009. The sample statistically represents 97% of the
12
Canadian population aged six to seventy-nine years old. From this survey it was shown that 62%
of Canadians had private dental insurance, and 6% had public insurance, while 32% did not have
any dental insurance (Health Canada., 2010).
Social Assistance: The Social Assistance Statistical Report (2010) administered by the Federal-
Provincial-Territorial Directors of Income Support listed the number of families receiving social
assistance between 2000-2008. Between 2007-2008, the number of families that were recorded
as receiving social assistance was as follows:
a) Newfoundland and Labrador: 16,258
b) Prince Edward Island: 5,700
c) Nova Scotia: 24,836
d) New Brunswick: 31,500
e) Quebec: 884,330
f) Ontario: 372,000
g) Manitoba: 56,200
h) Saskatchewan: 41,700
i) Alberta: 49,400
j) British Columbia: 91,340
k) Yukon: 895
13
l) Northwest Territories: 1,859
m) Nunavut: 15,523
(Federal Provincial Territorial Directors of Income Support, 2010)
Furthermore, according to the February 2014 Ontario Works Report, 450,552 individuals were
listed as beneficiaries of Ontario Works Social Assistance (Ontario Ministry of Community and
Social Services, 2014).
These individuals may be unable to afford a laboratory-processed crown. Hence, the SSC
restoration for the permanent posterior dentition could represent an effective, practical and
affordable treatment option for these individuals (Ettinger et al., 1998). Whether placed as an
interim or long-term restoration, the SSC could allow these patients to maintain their permanent
posterior dentitions, preserve function and avoid dental extractions.
4. Methods Used in Previous Clinical Studies of Restorative Materials
(a) Clinical Outcomes for Stainless Steel Crown Restorations
The longevity of restorations is dependent on many factors including operator skill, materials
used, the criteria for repair or replacement, and patient compliance (Miyamoto et al., 2007).
Based on the current literature, it is difficult to draw specific conclusions relating to restoration
longevity due to a lack of standardization. Definitions of restoration outcomes and various
methodological designs remain as the most substantial differences found between studies (De
Backer et al., 2007). In addition, there is a paucity of literature comparing the outcomes of SSC
restorations to direct conventional restorations in the permanent posterior dentition.
14
In a prospective study, Roberts and Sherriff (1990) reported the survival of amalgam and SSC
restorations placed in both primary and permanent posterior teeth over a 10-year period. This
was one of the only clinical studies that traced and compared clinical outcomes of permanent
molar SSCs versus other restorations (e.g. Class I and II amalgam restorations). The status of
each restoration was recorded as: satisfactory, satisfactory but extracted for orthodontic
purposes, failed, or exfoliated with a satisfactory restoration at the last visit. Failure of amalgam
restorations was recorded if replacement was required. The main reasons for replacement and
resultant failure classification included ditching, fractured filling or tooth, recurrent caries and
new caries at other sites. If caries was observed at a site not associated with the original
restoration but necessitating its replacement, this was classified as a false failure (i.e. the failure
was unrelated to any problems with the original restoration). For SSC restorations, true failures
were defined as when the crown became uncemented or demonstrated occlusal perforation.
There was no mention or account for other potential modes of failure of the SSC restorations
such as recurrent caries or tooth fracture (Roberts and Sherriff, 1990).
A total of 468 SSCs placed in primary posterior teeth were evaluated. It was found that within
this cohort, three had cement failure, and seven had occlusal perforation failure. Comparatively,
of the 43 SSCs on permanent posterior teeth, only one true failure was reported (occlusal
perforation) (Roberts and Sherriff, 1990). Despite the small sample size, this study can provide
insight with regard to the possibility that there could be differences in outcomes for SSCs placed
on permanent versus primary teeth. For evaluation of the SSC restoration in the permanent
dentition the scope of outcomes should be broadened in comparison to the criteria reported
previously in order to attain greater knowledge regarding the precise fate of this type of
restoration.
15
Prior to 1990, several studies compared the longevity of preformed metal crowns to direct
restorations in the posterior primary dentition and shared the same definitions for failure as
outlined above. In one of the earliest studies, SSCs were compared with multisurface amalgam
restorations placed in the same patients (Braff, 1975). Braff et al. (1975) evaluated seventy-six
SSCs and 150 amalgam restorations over a 32-month period. Of these, there were 131 (87%) true
amalgam restoration failures, and 19 (25%) true SSC failures (Braff, 1975). Dawson et al. and
Eriksson et al. published similar studies in 1981 and 1988 respectively, comparing amalgam and
SSC restorations in primary molar teeth (Dawson et al., 1981; Eriksson et al., 1988). Dawson et
al. (1981) followed 114 patient records over a minimum of 2 years, comparing 114 Class I and
102 Class II amalgam restorations with 64 SSCs in primary molar teeth. It was reported that 37%
of Class I and 71% of Class II amalgam restorations were replaced, as compared with only 13%
of the SSCs (Dawson et al., 1981). Eriksson et al., (1988) evaluated 104 SSC teeth paired with
antimere controls to exfoliation. Twenty-two of the SSC teeth (21%), and 66 of the 80 amalgam-
restored teeth (83%) required further treatment (Eriksson et al., 1988). For each of these studies,
a true failure was considered to occur when the crown or restoration was involved directly in the
failure, whereas a false failure was the result from a cause remote from the restoration (Braff,
1975). The finding of recurrent caries was limited to amalgam restorations and was not
considered during the assessment or account of failure for the SSC restorations. As such,
occlusal perforation and loss of crown were considered as true failures.
In 1996, Einwag and Dunninger modified their definition of restoration failure in a retrospective
evaluation of paired SSCs and 2-surface amalgams of the primary dentition in 66 patients over 8
years. Each patient received one SSC and a 2-surface amalgam restoration, with each patient
serving as their own internal control. Survival was defined as the restoration remaining in situ
16
without modification during the entire period of observation. Therefore, failure was recorded as a
restoration requiring any repair or replacement (Einwag and Dunninger, 1996). The eight-year
survival rate for the SSC restorations was 83% whereas after 4.5 years, the amalgam restorations
had a survival rate well below 40%. The difference in replacement rate between the two forms of
treatment was also significant. Only 4 of the 66 SSCs (6%) required replacement as compared to
the 38 of 66 (58%) amalgam restorations. The most frequent reasons for the replacement of
restorations were secondary to defects and new carious lesions (Einwag and Dunninger, 1996).
Sharaf and Farsi (2004) was one of the first studies to not classify a repaired SSC (i.e. occlusal
perforation with amalgam restoration) as a failure, and placed greater importance on the
preservation and maintenance of the tooth. In their retrospective chart review, patient
demographic data and the life span of SSCs in the primary posterior dentition were collected.
The longevity of the SSC restoration was measured by the duration of time that the SSC was
present on the primary tooth as viewed from the patient records. This measurement of duration
would be appropriate for the evaluation of SSCs in the permanent dentition, as the goal is to
maintain the existing tooth with as little intervention as possible.
In 2005, Roberts et al. conducted a prospective study where posterior restorations in primary
molars were assessed. True failures were defined as: recurrent caries, restoration fracture,
marginal degradation, pulpal infection, and partial or total loss of the restoration. False failures
were defined as those not directly related to the restoration itself, but that still necessitated the
replacement of the observed restoration. For SSC restorations, true failures were defined as
either crown loss or occlusal perforation, and false failures related to the failure of pulp
treatments. From the Roberts et al. study (2005), the outcomes of 544 Class I, and 962 Class II
resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorations were compared to 1010 SSCs over a
17
seven year follow up. At the last review of each restoration, 98.3% of Class I, 97.3% of Class II
RMGICs and 97.0% of SSCs were either satisfactory or withdrawn intact. Thirty (3%) SSC
restorations were classified as true failures with occlusal perforation accounting for 21 cases and
cement failure accounting for the remaining nine. Within the RMGIC true failure group, 1.7%
for Class I and 2.7% for Class II restorations was reported, new and recurrent carious lesions
accounted for the majority (73.0%) of replacements. The high success of the RMGIC
restorations was due to their use being restricted to the treatment of minimal sized carious
lesions. Whereas, SSCs were used to treat larger carious lesions, or where the decay process
involved both proximal surfaces (Roberts et al., 2005).
(b) Clinical Outcomes for Multisurface Intra Coronal Direct Restorations
Soncini et al. (2007) conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the replacement rates of
amalgam and composite resin materials in children’s posterior teeth over a 5-year period. Three
overall categories of failure were used; restorative, extraction, and other. Restorative failure was
described as dental caries and/or fracture of the tooth or restoration requiring replacement.
Extraction was categorized as either the result of dental caries and/or fracture or as a result of
periodontal problems requiring extraction. Lastly, any other failure was described as a failure not
covered above requiring re-treatment of the involved tooth with a more extensive restoration.
Within a group of 399 children, 509 amalgam and 753 composite restorations (CR) were placed
in posterior permanent teeth. Over the 5-year period of observation, the frequency for restoration
replacement or repair was higher for CR (14.9% and 2.8% respectively), as compared to the
replacement or repair frequency for amalgam restorations (10.8% and 0.4% respectively). There
was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of specific reasons for replacement on
18
the basis of the restorative material used (Soncini et al., 2007).
Simecek et al. (2009) evaluated amalgam and composite resin restorations of the posterior
permanent dentition based on more specific definitions. All restorations were recorded as either
clinically acceptable or requiring replacement. Replacement was defined as re-treatment
documented during the initial or periodic examination due to new or recurrent caries, defective
restorations, or endodontic therapy. Replacement was further sub-classified if limited to the
previously restored surfaces, as replacement of existing restorations (RERs). The date of
replacement was documented as the date of the dental examination at which the need for re-
treatment had been documented. The time to replacement was recorded as the number of days
from the initial examination to the examination documenting the need for replacement. Including
initial and follow-up examinations, a total of 356 (31.2%) of 1,140 CR restorations required
replacement, while 1,730 (27.3%) of 6,341 amalgam restorations required replacement. Of the
restorations that had surfaces requiring treatment, further analyses revealed 5.8% of 5,307
amalgam restorations and 8.5% of 925 CR restorations were replaced due to recurrent caries or
other factors limited to only the previously restored surfaces. Data available from the dental
records neither allowed for determination of reason for replacement nor provided information
relating to the time of initial restoration placement. This was regarded as a study limitation as
reasons for replacement and restoration longevity could not be assessed (Simecek et al., 2009).
Opdam et al. in 2007 and 2010 conducted retrospective studies comparing the longevity of
amalgam and composite resin restorations of posterior permanent teeth. The two studies shared
common definitions for outcomes regarding success and failure. Restoration failure was defined
as when a restoration was either scheduled for replacement, replaced, repaired or when the tooth
was extracted. Date and reason for failure was recorded from all patient charts. Success was
19
defined as when a restoration was still in function at the last check-up and found to be clinically
acceptable. From the 2007 study, which evaluated Class I and II amalgam and composite resin
restorations between 1990 and 1997; 182 (20%) of the 912 amalgam restorations and 259
(13.2%) of the 1955 CR restorations failed and required replacement. Reasons for failure were
recorded for each restoration and caries accounted for the majority of the total failures (29% of
amalgam and 38% of CR restorations). Life tables calculated from the data demonstrated a
survival for CR restorations of 91.7% at 5 years and 82.2% at 10 years. While the survival for
amalgam restorations was reported as 89.6% at 5 years and 79.2% at 10 years, demonstrating
similar longevity. Limitations of this study included the operator’s reliance on tongue shields
with cotton rolls for moisture isolation and the lack of independent evaluation of restoration
quality (Opdam et al., 2007). In the latter study by Opdam et al. (2010), 24% of the 1202
amalgam and 15% of the 747 CR Class II restorations were regarded as failures between 1983
and 2003. Recurrent caries was the main reason for failure (5.7% of amalgam, 6.6% of CR
restorations) (Opdam et al., 2010).
The final outcomes reported in both of the aforementioned studies were quite similar suggesting,
among other things, that in all likelihood, the definitions used for restoration failure were
consistent, and can be used reliably to study the longevity of any particular restoration.
(c) Lab Fabricated Crown Clinical Outcomes
As stated previously, there is a lack of literature that compares the longevity of multisurface intra
coronal direct conventional restorations to SSCs in the permanent dentition. In place of the SSC
restoration, literature was examined which included the use of cast full metal lab fabricated
crowns (FMC) for the restoration of the posterior permanent dentition compared to conventional
20
restorative materials (e.g. amalgam, composite resin, ceramic and lab fabricated crowns, etc.).
Van Nieuwenhuysen et al. (2003) conducted a long-term evaluation of large restorations in the
permanent dentition in which 60% of the teeth had been treated endodontically. In all, 722
amalgam restorations, 115 composite resin restorations and 89 full gold metal crowns were
placed in 428 adults. Restorations were classified as being in function, censored, or failed if they
were repaired, replaced or indicated for extraction. Failures were classified further as being
relative or absolute. Relative failure applied if the restoration was repaired once, while absolute
failure applied if; a restoration had been repaired twice, the restoration or crown had been
replaced or if the tooth had been extracted. Failures occurred in 28% of the amalgam
restorations, 30% of the CR restorations and 24% of the FMC. From the total restorations, the
most frequent reasons for failure included fracture of restoration (8%), recurrent caries (6%) and
fracture of the tooth cusp (5%). In regards to failures for FMCs, the main reasons were secondary
caries (7/21) and endodontic problems (6/21). Kaplan-Meier median survival times (where any
re-treatment was considered as a failure) were calculated; amalgam restorations survived for 12.8
years, CR restorations survived for 7.8, and crown restorations survived for more than 14.6 years
(Van Nieuwenhuysen et al., 2003).
De Backer et al. in 2006 investigated the survival of full metal and porcelain fused to metal
(PFM) crowns in relation to biologic and technical variables. Failures were divided and
documented as being either biologic or technical/patient related. The failures were subdivided
further as being either reversible or irreversible in nature. Biologic failures included; caries,
periodontal problems, fracture of coronal structure, endodontic problems. Technical or patient-
related failure included; fracture of porcelain, loss of retention, trauma. Irreversible failure was
defined having occurred when the full crown or tooth was lost, whereas reversible failure was
21
defined as having occurred when the crown required recementation. In a sample of 456 patients,
1036 full crowns (cast gold or PFM) were evaluated over a sample period of 18-years.
Irreversible failure resulting in full crown or tooth loss occurred in 116 of the restored teeth.
Biologic failures accounted for 66.4% of the irreversible failures, including caries (24.3%),
periodontal problems (17.2%), fracture of the abutment tooth (12.9%), and endodontic problems
(12.0%). Technical or patient-related failures, such as fracture of the porcelain or loss of
retention accounted for the remainder of the overall failures. In a group of surviving restorations,
4.7% (43/920) experienced a reversible complication, indicating that there was a loss of retention
and/or caries or pulpal problems, but the full crown could be recemented without failure of the
tooth or full crown. Lastly, the reported Kaplan-Meier survival rate after 18 years was 80.3% and
78.6% for restored molars and premolars, respectively (De Backer et al., 2007).
In 2007, Pjetursson et al. conducted a meta-analysis assessing the 5-year survival rates of all-
ceramic single crowns as compared to PFM crowns with analysis of observed complications.
Survival was defined as the crown remaining in situ with or without modification during the
entire observation period. The analysis of the biological complications encompassed caries, loss
of pulp vitality, tooth fracture and periodontal disease progression. Technical complications
included; fracture or chipping of the ceramic, marginal gap/discoloration, and loss of retention. A
total of 34 studies published since 1991 were included in the meta-analysis. For all-ceramic
crowns, 27 studies provided data on the survival of a total of 6006 crowns after a mean follow-up
time of 4.9 years. Four hundred and thirty crowns were reported as lost, translating to a 5-year
survival of 93.3%. For PFM, 6 studies provided data on the survival of a total of 1765 crowns, to
which 160 crowns were reported as lost, translating into a 5-year survival of 95.6%. The most
frequent biological complication of all-ceramic crowns was; loss of pulp vitality, annual
22
complication rate of 0.43%, and caries, annual complication rate of 0.37% and 0.64% for PFM
(Pjetursson et al., 2007).
5) Radiographic Evaluation and Outcomes
There are few studies that include longitudinal radiographic examination of restorations placed
as part of their evaluation of longevity and outcomes (Knoernschild and Campbell, 2000). As an
adjunct to clinical evaluation, radiographic examination can provide important diagnostic
information pertaining to; new or recurrent carious lesions, pulpal status, apical or periradicular
disease, and periodontal status (White and Pharoah, 2009).
(a) Pulpal Status
Clinical signs of pulpal or periapical inflammation are variable in nature (Orstavik et al., 1986).
With no known blood or salivary parameters, radiographic interpretation is the dominant
criterion for the diagnosis, and assessment of progression or resolution of periapical
inflammation and/or apical periodontitis often referred to as rarefying osteitis (Federation
Dentaire Internationale, 1982; Orstavik et al., 1986). Apical periodontitis is primarily an
inflammatory reaction to dental caries caused by infection of the dental pulp and root canal
system (Ridao-Sacie et al., 2007). Necrotic and infected pulps may cause the development of
gradually increasing, inflammatory lesions of the periapical tissues (Simon, 1984), accompanied
by structural derangement of the surrounding bone (Valderhaug, 1972). These changes may
include a widened periodontal ligament space, loss of lamina dura, and apical/periradicular
radiolucency (referred to above as rarefying osteitis, which reflects a degree of non-specificity
relating to the actual underlying biological processes being imaged).
23
Orstavik (1986) described periapical inflammation as a process that follows a biological
continuum and may change direction into either healing or destructive phases (Orstavik et al.,
1986). Through understanding of this continuum, Orstavik (1986) applied an ordinal scale
scoring system to the radiographic evaluations of apical periodontitis and developed the widely
utilized, Periapical Index (PAI) scoring system (Orstavik et al., 1986).
The PAI utilizes an ordinal scale consisting of five scores designed to determine the absence,
presence, or transformation of a disease state (Orstavik et al., 1986; Trope et al., 1999). The PAI
is based on reference radiographs with corresponding line drawings and their associated score on
a photographic print, which is useful for calibration and training of investigators. These scores
are based on correlation with verified histological diagnoses published originally by Brynolf
(Brynolf, 1967) . Using the PAI score, the periapical status of each of the tooth roots is
categorized and given a designated score between 1 and 5. The five categories include; (1)
Normal periapical structure; (2) Small changes in bone structure; (3) Changes in bone structure
with some mineral loss; (4) Periodontitis with well-defined radiolucent area; and (5) Severe
periodontitis with exacerbating features (Ridao-Sacie et al., 2007). Each category used in the PAI
represents a step on an ordinal scale of registration of periapical infection. The worst score of all
roots is to be taken to represent the PAI score for multirooted teeth. As reported throughout the
endodontic literature, a PAI score of 1-2 is commonly regarded as healthy, healed or minimally
inflamed, whereas a score of 3-5 is diseased (Kerosuo and Orstavik, 1997; Orstavik et al., 1986;
Ridao-Sacie et al., 2007; Trope et al., 1999).
24
(b) Periodontal Status
Radiographs play an integral role in the assessment of periodontal disease and associated
alveolar bone loss. They provide unique information about the status of the periodontium and a
permanent record of the condition of the bone throughout the course of the disease. Radiographs
aid the clinician in identifying the extent of destruction of alveolar bone, local contributing
factors, and features of the periodontium that influence the prognosis. Important features related
to periodontal status that may be identified radiographically include: amount of bone present,
condition of the alveolar crests, bone loss in furcation areas, width of the periodontal ligament
space, local irritating factors that increase the risk of periodontal disease (i.e. calculus or
overextended restorations), root length and morphology, open interproximal contacts, anatomic
considerations, and/or pathologic considerations (i.e. caries, periapical lesions, root resorption)
(White and Pharoah, 2009). Radiographic assessment alone cannot be relied upon to make a
definitive diagnosis relating to the absence, presence or activity of periodontal disease. But in
the context of most investigations that are not focused entirely on periodontitis as an outcome,
this method of assessment is acceptable.
In the primary dentition, alveolar bone loss (and proximal caries) has not been correlated directly
to the degree of success or failure associated with preformed SSCs (Bimstein et al., 1996). Sharaf
et al. (2004) conducted one of the only studies to evaluate clinically and radiographically, the
effect of SSCs placed on primary molars on the surrounding gingival and bone structures.
Bitewing radiographs were utilized using standardized angulation of the X-ray cone to generate
clear images of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and alveolar bone crest between the primary
molars. As described in the literature previously, interproximal bone level was considered
normal or non-resorbed when the distance between the crest of interdental bone and the CEJ was
25
2mm or less. When the distance was more than 2mm, the bone was considered resorbed
(Bimstein et al., 1988; Bimstein and Garcia-Godoy, 1994; Bimstein et al., 1993; Bimstein et al.,
1996). Quality of the crown was also evaluated and recorded as either adequate when all the
margins were smooth and well adapted covering all dentin, or inadequate, when crown margins
appeared too short, extended below the CEJ or away from the tooth surface by more than 1mm
(Sharaf and Farsi, 2004).
The findings from this study coincided with previously published work (Bimstein, 1992;
Bimstein et al., 1988; Bimstein et al., 1993) confirming that interproximal bone resorption was
not significantly affected by crown marginal extension or adaptation, preservation of tight
proximal contacts between teeth, or duration of presence of the crown. However, from the
crowns that demonstrated interproximal bone resorption; crowns that were judged
radiographically as inadequate (19/26, 73.1%) were more likely to demonstrate resorption
compared to those that were adequate (76/228, 33.3%) (Sharaf and Farsi, 2004).
Most recently, Belduz and Yilmaz (2014) conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to
evaluate the gingival and periodontal health of restored posterior primary molars with traditional
and esthetic SSC restorations. Two hundred fifteen crowns were placed, with each child
receiving one traditional SSC (77) and one randomly selected esthetic crown (45 open-faced
SSC, 44 veneered-SSC, 29 NuSmile® pre-veneered SSC, 20 PedoPearls™ aluminum veneered
crowns). The oral hygiene and periodontal health of the restored teeth were evaluated clinically
and radiographically at three and six month intervals for 18 months. Similar to previously
published studies (Bimstein, 1992; Bimstein et al., 1988; Bimstein et al., 1993; Bimstein et al.,
1996; Sharaf and Farsi, 2004) the interproximal bone level was considered normal and not
resorbed when the distance between the crest of interdental bone and CEJ was less than 2mm.
26
Bone was considered resorbed when this distance was more than 2mm. The radiographic results
were not published, however, the clinical probing pocket depths revealed all SSC except for
PedoPearls™ at 18 months (1.76 +/- 0.64) to be less than 2mm.
To date, there has been no study that has investigated the effects of SSC restorations placed on
the permanent dentition and alveolar bone levels by way of radiographic assessment. However,
the measurement and evaluation of bone loss for the permanent dentition as defined by White et
al., (2009) coincides with the criteria used by Sharaf et al. (2004) in the primary dentition. By
definition, alveolar bone loss is when the crest of the buccal and lingual cortical plates and the
intervening interdental bone has been resorbed with the subsequent apical positioning of the crest
of alveolar bone from the CEJ. Mild bone loss may be defined as approximately a 1-2mm loss of
the supporting bone, and moderate loss is anything greater than 2mm up to the loss of half the
supporting bone height. Severe loss is anything beyond this point (White and Pharoah, 2009).
Knoernschild and Campbell (2000) conducted a review of the literature regarding periodontal
health surrounding fixed lab fabricated full coronal restorations in the permanent dentition. From
the available literature, attachment loss was determined by changes noted in either periodontal
probing depths or radiographic alveolar bone height evaluated independently or in conjunction.
To date, the most precise measurement of alveolar bone loss is through the use of intra-oral
radiographs that can permit measurement of changes as small as 0.2mm (Benn, 1990). Despite
accuracy of measurement, the studies examined by Knoernschild and Campbell, did not report
their methodology in great detail. As such, the radiographic measurements documented were
presumed to be recorded interproximally from the radiographic crown margin to alveolar bone
crest (Knoernschild and Campbell, 2000).
27
6. Purpose of the Study
The prefabricated full coverage SSC has proven to be extremely durable, relatively inexpensive
and available for the restoration of both primary and permanent dentitions (Randall, 2002; Seale,
2002). Each of these attributes has contributed to the success and recognition of the SSC as the
most effective primary molar restoration (Kindelan et al., 2008). Indications for the use of SSCs
include but are not limited to the restoration of multisurface caries, teeth with developmental
enamel or dentinal defects, teeth with traumatic fracture or extensive wear, and persons with
special needs, or those who are uncooperative and require the use of GA (Brook and King, 1982;
Croll, 1993; M. S. Duggal and Curzon, 1989; Goldberg, 1969; Titley and Farkouh, 2001). The
available literature concerning the outcomes and longevity of SSC restorations has largely been
limited to the primary dentition. Roberts and Sherriff (1990) was one of the few studies that
evaluated permanent molar SSCs with amalgam restorations, and revealed only 2.3% of the
SSCs required replacement over a 10-year period. The promising results from this study in
combination with the emerging potential application for SSC restorations for the permanent
dentition represent an important treatment option for several patient populations. These include:
persons with special needs, persons requiring use of general anesthetic, geriatric populations and
those with limited finances or dental coverage. The longevity of restorations is dependent on
many factors including operator skills, materials used, the criteria for repair or replacement, and
patient compliance (Miyamoto et al., 2007). Based on the current literature, it remains difficult to
draw specific conclusions relating to restoration longevity due to a lack of standardization.
Definitions of restoration outcomes and various methodological designs remain as the most
substantial differences found between studies (De Backer et al., 2007). In addition, there was a
paucity of literature comparing the outcomes of SSC restorations to direct conventional
28
multisurface restorations in permanent posterior teeth. For these reasons, the purpose of this
retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of
SSC restorations in the posterior permanent dentition.
29
B. EXPECTED OUTCOMES
1. A stainless steel crown restoration is an effective long-term restoration for the permanent
posterior dentition.
2. A stainless steel crown restoration on a permanent posterior tooth has a better or equal
outcome (success/failure) compared to other commonly used multisurface restorative materials.
3. Posterior permanent teeth restored with a stainless steel crown restoration will have minimal
(<2mm) alveolar bone loss and demonstrate pulpal health as measured by PAI scores.
30
C. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1) To assess the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of SSC restorations on the
permanent posterior dentition.
2) To evaluate if SSCs in the posterior permanent dentition have superior longevity as compared
to the other restorative treatments.
3) To assess the degree of alveolar bone loss surrounding the SSC restoration radiographically
thereby indirectly determining the effects on the periodontium.
4) To assess the pulpal status of posterior permanent teeth radiographically before and after
receiving a SSC restoration.
31
D. MATERIALS AND METHODS
This retrospective cohort study was approved by Mount Sinai Hospital’s Research Ethics Board
(REB: 14-0238-CV) and supported by the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, Faculty of
Dentistry, as having scientific merit. As per Mount Sinai Hospital’s REB recommendations,
specific patient consent was not required to conduct this low risk chart review study.
1. Sample
The subjects for this study included registered patients at the Mount Sinai Hospital’s (MSH)
Dentistry Clinic for Persons with Special Needs. The MSH Dentistry Clinic is located within a
tertiary/quaternary care hospital and is designed to provide all forms of dental care for a diverse
population of persons with clearly identified disabilities. The patients registered in the MSH
Clinic must be referred by a primary care physician, dental practitioner, primary caregiver or
support worker, and are commonly 16 years of age or older. The Clinic is located within a
hospital setting in order to facilitate medical management and as needed, provide care for
patients under sedation or general anesthesia (S Hulland, 1997; S. Hulland and Sigal, 2000; Sigal
and Sigal, 2006).
The inclusion criteria included active patients with at least one SSC restoration of their
permanent posterior dentitions. From these patients, all conventional restorations of their
permanent posterior dentitions whether previously placed from a different center or at the MSH
Clinic were assessed. Conventional multisurface restorations included amalgam, composite resin
or glass ionomer. Restorative treatments at the MSH Clinic may have been conducted either in
the clinic under local anesthesia or in the operating room under GA. Any patient without a
32
history of a SSC restoration as documented within their MSH chart was excluded from the study.
2. Data Collection
The primary investigator (AS) conducted a comprehensive chart review of all current charts
registered within the MSH Dentistry Clinic for Persons with Special Needs. Administrative
AbelDent® Software from the MSH Dentistry Clinic was used to conduct a search of all patients
since 1994 that received a billing code for a SSC restoration. These recorded billing dates were
used to expedite the collection of dental treatment data from the respective dental charts.
(a) Part 1: Demographic and Dental Information Collection
Microsoft® Visual Studio Express® 2013 was used to create a unique and secure, password-
protected electronic database for data collection. Each patient was assigned a research code to
protect his or her identity. The demographic, clinical evaluation and outcome assessments of
each respective posterior permanent dentition restoration were provided based upon chart entries.
All possible input outcomes were assigned respective variables to simplify data collection and
future analyses. The information that was collected included the following:
i) Appendix 1: Demographics (Pages 149-158)
a) Patient demographics; medical records number, date of birth, gender, date of initial visit to
MSH, and of most recent visit, referral source to MSH, type of residence
b) Family History; history of medical issues
c) Medical Information; medical diagnoses, review of systems, allergies, surgeries
33
d) Medications Prescribed
e) Previous Surgical Experience; number of dental general anesthetics, number of teeth recorded
at each treatment date
f) Dental Information; dental coverage, findings from initial exam (occlusion, overbite, overjet,
parafunction), caries risk, oral hygiene (OH) status, number of teeth present, what, where and
how dental treatment was conducted, who performed the treatment, recall frequency and
cooperation/behavioural problems.
The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry caries risk assessment tool (CAT) was the
foundation of recorded entries for patient’s caries risk (American Academy Pediatric Dentistry,
2013).
ii) Appendix 2: Dental Treatment (Pages 162-163)
For each restored permanent posterior tooth the following information was collected in a
temporal fashion from time of placement or new patient exam (for pre-existing restorations) to
date of most recent patient visit: tooth number, date of initial new patient exam, final assessment
or date of treatment, dental diagnoses, tooth surfaces restored, type of restorative treatment,
anesthetic method, status of pre-existing restoration and final assessment of restoration.
For each restoration entry, the possible dental diagnoses as documented from the chart records
included one the following ten options:
i) Caries: Carious lesion and associated surfaces that required dental treatment.
34
ii) Pre-existing Restoration: For conventional restorations (amalgam, composite resin, and glass
ionomer) present at new patient exam where previous dental history was unknown, or at final
assessment.
iii) Pre-existing SSC: For stainless steel crown restorations present at new patient exam where
previous dental history was unknown, or at final assessment.
iv) Loose/Lost Restoration: Conventional restoration (amalgam, composite resin, glass ionomer)
documented as loose or missing.
v) Loose/Lost SSC: Stainless steel crown documented as loose, having inadequate adaptation or
missing.
vi) SSC Perforation: Stainless steel crown with localized occlusal crown perforation.
vii) Tooth Fracture: Loss of tooth structure (partial/complete) and associated surfaces.
viii) Restoration Fracture: Loss of conventional restoration structure (partial/complete) and
associated surfaces.
ix) Pulpal Disease/Necrosis: Recorded as having possible history of pain, stimulated or
spontaneous, diagnosed as irreversible pulpitis or pulpal necrosis, and possible evidence of
fistula, parulis, abscess and/or facial swelling.
x) Periodontal disease: When treatment was conducted without diagnoses of caries, tooth or
restoration fracture, pulpal pathology or necrosis. This included periodontal disease associated
with significant tooth mobility.
35
The collection of patient demographic and dental diagnoses was conducted as outlined in
Appendices 1 and 2, which was adapted from Hulland, S., (1997) (S. Hulland and Sigal, 2000;
Sigal and Sigal, 2006).
Based on the reviewed literature regarding the assessment of restoration outcomes, the following
criteria were applied when assessing and recording each posterior permanent restoration and the
status of the pre-existing restoration:
i) Unknown: For pre-existing restorations where previous dental history was not known.
ii) Intact or within normal limits: The restoration was present and did not require any adjustment
or treatment.
iii) Non-restored (virgin) tooth: The restoration recorded was the first treatment for the
respective tooth.
iv) New/Original Site: An additional restoration was placed on the noted tooth, involving a
different surface(s) from that previously restored.
v) Defect (monitored with no treatment required): The restoration was present with a localized
minor defect that did not pose any added cariogenic or traumatic risk. The restoration was
monitored and did not require adjustment or treatment.
vi) Requiring repair: The restoration was present with a localized defect that presented as a
cariogenic or traumatic risk factor. The defect within the existing restoration was repaired.
vii) Requiring recementation: Applicable only to the SSC restoration. The SSC restoration was
intact but with inadequate retention. Utilizing the same SSC, it was removed, the respective tooth
36
was within normal limits, and the SSC was re-adapted and cemented. This was further classified
as a restoration failure.
viii) Requiring replacement: The restoration was present with a severe defect, fracture, and/or
loss of retention. The restoration was replaced utilizing the same type and extent of restorative
treatment (SSC, Amalgam, Composite Resin, and GI). This was further classified as a restoration
failure.
ix) Failure: The restoration may or may not have been present due to a severe defect, recurrent or
new carious lesion, fracture, and/or loss of retention. Treatment required may have included
endodontic therapy, placement of a larger and/or different restoration, new SSC, SSC
recementation, or extraction.
For conventional restorative treatments (Amalgam, Composite Resin, and Glass Ionomer)
replacement of a restoration utilizing the same material of same or greater extent, was defined as
a failure of the initial restoration.
vi) Restoration Chronology
The history of health and/or treatment for each restored posterior permanent tooth was recorded
over time.
Pre-existing restorations present at time of new patient exam were recorded as the date of the
initial exam (censored). The date of the restoration requiring repair, replacement, recementation,
or failure was documented as the date the treatment was conducted.
37
The duration of function or survival was recorded as the number of years between the following
start and end time points:
a) Start: Either the date of initial exam for preexisting restorations (censored), or the date of
placement for new restorations
b) End: Either the most recent examination documenting the intact restoration (censored), or the
date of restoration failure
If at the final assessment (most recent examination) the restoration was deemed as requiring
further treatment, this was recorded as a failure for the respective date.
In the event that a tooth was lost between recall exams, the first date at which the tooth was
observed as still present was recorded as the terminal survival date.
These evaluations allowed for comparisons to be made regarding the outcomes and longevity
between SSC and conventional restorations of the posterior permanent dentition.
(b) Part 2: Radiographic Assessment of SSC Restorations
Radiographic assessments of the SSC restorations were made through the examination of
bitewing and periapical radiographs where available. It should be noted that due to poor
cooperation, all active patients at the MSH Dentistry Clinic did not have diagnostic radiographs
available for analysis. Further, some patients whom required diagnoses and treatment under GA
had a limited number of radiographs, as these were dependent on their frequency of GA
procedures.
38
For the radiographs available, the method of digitizing the radiographic images was
standardized; films were mounted in a cardboard slot to block off ambient light emanating from
the illuminated view box, a ten-inch copy stand secured and directed the Canon® G12 digital
camera 5.7cm over the mounted radiograph. The camera had the following settings: ISO 200,
Macro, Aperture value of 5.6, No flash, Zoom (5-50cm), and with Daylight capture. The images
were saved as JPEG files with a respective research code to protect the patient’s identity. These
images were then uploaded into the secure, password-protected electronic database for collection
and analyses (Page 167).
From these records, posterior radiographs in which the proximal areas were acceptable for
inclusion had minimal distortion, minimal overlapping between proximal surfaces, and
demonstrated a clear image of the alveolar bone crest (AB) and cementoenamel junction. All
radiographs meeting inclusion criteria were read digitally on a 10” Hewlett-Packard® computer
screen and a measurement of the distance from the AB to the CEJ was recorded within the
database utilizing an electronic measuring tool. To control for magnification, the JPEG files that
were uploaded into the unique database were automatically set into a standardized viewing box
for size 2 films.
Adapted by Bimstein et al., 1988 & 1996 and Sharaf et al., 2003, interproximal bone level was
considered normal or non-resorbed if the distance between the crest of interdental bone and the
CEJ was 2mm or less. If this distance was more than 2mm, the bone was considered resorbed.
The observations were recorded over time allowing for the assessment of periodontal status
surrounding the SSC restorations in the posterior permanent dentition.
A subsample study population with before and after periapical radiographic images of the tooth
39
receiving the SSC restoration had both images analyzed. All digitized images were analyzed on a
10” Hewlett-Packard computer screen. The periapical status of the respective tooth was
classified using the Periapical Index (PAI) Scoring Scale as described by Orstvik (1986) as
follows:
(1) = Normal periapical structure (healthy);
(2) = Small changes in bone structure (mild inflammation/PDL widening);
(3) = Changes in bone structure with some mineral loss;
(4) = Periodontitis with well-defined radiolucent area;
(5) = Severe periodontitis with exacerbating features.
Reference radiographs and corresponding line drawings with their associated PAI scores as
provided by Orstvik (1986) were utilized when assessing the digitized periapical radiographs
(Orstavik et al., 1986). For multirooted posterior teeth, the worst score of all roots was taken to
represent the PAI score. A PAI score of 1-2 was regarded as healthy or successful, whereas a
score of 3-5 was regarded as a failure and diseased. The observations were recorded over time
allowing for assessment of the pulpal status of SSC restored posterior permanent teeth.
Prior to the review of active patient charts from the MSH Dentistry Clinic, two pilot trials were
conducted. For the first pilot trial, the primary investigator (PI) was standardized with a senior
dentist from the MSH Dentistry Clinic by independently reading charts from 10 randomly
selected patients from the inactive archives. In the second pilot trial, the PI was standardized
with a Periodontist and an Endodontist from the MSH Dentistry Clinic by independently
assessing 10 randomly selected radiographs of SSC restorations from the inactive archives. Each
40
patient/radiograph was assigned a research code to protect his or her identity. Agreement
analysis comparing transcription accuracy was conducted between the PI and senior experts to
achieve standardization.
All data was entered into the unique and secure, password-protected electronic database
(Microsoft® Visual Studio Express® 2013) exported into Microsoft® Excel® software and SAS
format for statistical analysis. Statistical analyses were carried out using SAS/STAT® software
version 9.2 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc.).
3. Data Analysis
For continuous variables descriptive summaries were performed as medians with ranges (min-
max). In case of comparable medians and means, the mean, standard error and ranges were
reported. For analyses where each subject contributed only one observation, summary statistics
were calculated in the usual manner. For cases where subjects contributed two or more
observations, standard deviations were calculated by taking into account the clustered nature of
the data. For binary and categorical variables, such as demographic, clinical and radiographic
observations, the number and percent of observations in each category were computed.
Agreement analyses were conducted between the PI and respective expert(s) from the pilot trials
as a total percentage of matched correct findings from a list of 566 and 60 items, from pilot 1 and
2 respectively.
Product-limit estimate of restoration longevities (some of which were censored) were
summarized using the method of Kaplan and Meier (Kaplan, 1958), separately for SSC, AM and
CR restorations. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the method
41
of Williams (Williams, 1995), which adjusted for correlations between the multiple restoration
longevities per subject.
New and pre-existing restorations were analyzed separately. Longevity was calculated as the
time from placement of the restoration until the earlier of the time it failed or the end of study.
Restorations still in place at the conclusion of the study period were treated as right-censored. In
the case of pre-existing restorations, the date of placement was not known, and date of first
presentation at the MSH Dentistry Clinic was used as a surrogate. A further survival analysis of
new and pre-existing restorations combined was conducted. In this analysis, all pre-existing
restorations were treated as left-censored because their actual placement dates were unknown.
Each of the three survival analyses (new, pre-existing, and combined) were conducted separately
for SSC and AM restorations. For CR restorations, only the analysis for pre-existing restorations
was conducted due to the paucity of newly placed CR restorations.
For new restorations only, and for each type of restoration, subgroup longevity (survival)
summaries were produced: gender (male, female); age at placement (0-22, 22-30, 30-40, 40+);
restoration location (upper, lower); restoration location (right, left); restoration location (upper
right, upper left, lower right, lower left).
Crude success rates for new SSC and AM restorations were calculated with standard errors
obtained using the method of Williams (Williams, 1995), which adjusted for correlations
between the multiple restoration longevities per subject. The crude success rate was defined as
the proportion of restorations that had not failed by the end of the study period.
42
E. RESULTS
1. Pilot Study Agreement Analysis and Standardization
Chart review assessed independently by PI and senior dentist from the MSH Clinic revealed
557/566 matched items with a 98.4% agreement. Radiographic measurement and interpretation
assessed independently by PI, endodontist and periodontist revealed 60/60 matched items with a
100.0% agreement (Page 171, Appendix 5).
2. Part 1: Patient Demographics and Dental Treatment
Two hundred and seventy-one subjects (males = 160, females = 111) were included in this study
with a median age of 44 years (15.5- 81.9) as of March 31st, 2015. Median age for MSH new
patient exam was 24.5 years (6.7-77.4) and the median age for first new restoration conducted at
MSH was 29.0 years (9.9-79.7) [Page 81, Table 1 & Figure 1; Pages 82-83, Table 2 & Figures 2,
3, 4]. Mean time as an active patient documented from initial to most recent dental appointment
was 11.9 (0.52) years with a range of 0.2 – 38.9 years.
(a) Medical History
Individuals with cognitive impairment, developmental delay and mental retardation represented
the largest groups within the current patient population, comprising 83%, 79% and 78%
respectively. The other most frequently observed conditions in descending order were seizure
disorder, physical impairment, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity
43
disorder/autism (unspecified), and autism (specified) [Page 84, Table 3; Page 88, Table 4].
Ninety seven percent of the patients had at least three disorders and 88% had four or more co-
morbid conditions/disorders [Page 88, Table 5].
At least one medication was being taken by 86.7% (235/271) of the patients with sixty percent
taking psychotropic medications. The other most frequently observed prescribed medications
included anticonvulsants (36%) and inhalers (12%) [Pages 89-90, Table 6 & Table 7].
The Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) supported nearly all of the patients in the study
(96%) [Page 90, Table 8].
(b) Dental History
From initial new patient exam, the record of patient’s occlusion, overbite, and overjet were not
readily documented and could not be analyzed. Parafunction/bruxism was recorded as a positive
finding in 215 patients, representing 79%. The majority of patients were assessed as having high
caries risk (65%) and had either fair or poor oral hygiene, 47% and 42% respectively. Two
hundred and twenty two patients (82%) were seen on a 3-month recall frequency, with the
remainder seen every 6 months [Page 91, Table 9].
(c) Behaviour
Sixty-four percent of patients were reported as ‘negative’ (29.9%) or ‘definitely negative’
(34.7%) on the Frankl Scale of behaviour and cooperation [Page 92, Table 10]. A total number
of 187 patients (69.0%) received at least one dental general anaesthetic.
44
(d) Dental Restorations
The 271 patients in the study comprised 2623 posterior permanent dentition restorations,
including 766 SSC, 1651 Amalgams, 204 Composite Resins, and 2 Glass Ionomers. The median
number for all posterior restorations per subject was 9.0 with a range of 1-37. It was more
common for patients to have multiple amalgam restorations (median 6 as compared to 2 for
SSC), and most teeth had a single restoration [Pages 93 -95, Table 11 & Figures 5, 6, 7]. From
total number of restorations for all subjects, amalgam restorations were the most commonly
documented (62.9%), followed by SSC (29.2%) and composite resin (7.8%). There was a
negligible amount of glass ionomer restorations (two) and did not allow for any analyses or
interpretation [See Table 12 Below and Page 96 for Figure 8].
Restoration type
All Restorations for All Subjects
N (%)
SSC Restorations only
N (%)
AM Restorations only
N (%)
CR Restorations only
N (%) Composite resin 204 (7.8%) 204 (100.0%) Amalgam 1651 (62.9%) 1651 (100.0%) Stainless steel crown
766 (29.2%) 766 (100.0%)
Glass ionomer 2 (0.1%) Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations for All Subjects' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type Table 12 showing the number of restorations by type (composite resin, amalgam, stainless steel crown or glass ionomer)
Tables 13 and 14 on pages 97-98 demonstrated the distribution of restorations per subject by
gender. No apparent differences were observed and consistent trends remained with more teeth
having amalgam restorations as compared to SSC or composite resin.
There was an equal distribution of restorations placed between arches and quadrants. Table 15
and Figures 9, 10, 11 on pages 99-101, showed the distribution of teeth treated by the various
45
restorative materials according to arch location. For the majority of all restoration types, the
permanent first molar was the most commonly restored tooth in each quadrant of the mouth
[Page 102 - 104, Table 16 & Figures 12, 13, 14, 15]. Tables 17 and 18 on pages 105-106
demonstrated the distribution of restorations by tooth location and gender. The findings were
consistent with that of the combined data mentioned above.
From the 2621 restorations recorded, 1664 (63.5%) were placed at the MSH Clinic, including
650 SSC (84.9%), 1011 AM (61.2%) and 3 CR (1.5%). A total of 957 (36.5%) restorations were
pre-existing at time of new patient exam, including 116 (15.1%) SSC, 640 (38.8%) AM and 201
(98.5%) CR [Page 107, Table 19].
From the new restoration records, caries was the most commonly recorded diagnoses for the
placement of SSCs (86.0%) and AMs (98.0%). Tooth fracture was recorded as the other most
frequently observed diagnosis for the placement of both SSC and AM restorations, 6.2% and
0.8% respectively [Page 108, Table 20].
(e) Failed Dental Restorations
There were 883 failed restorations from the 2621 combined pre-existing and new restorations
reported, including 120 (58.8%) CRs, 672 (40.7%) AMs and 91 (11.9%) SSCs [Page 107, Table
19; Page 109, Figure 16].
(i) Failed Dental Restorations: Stainless Steel Crowns
The breakdown for SSC failures, included extraction (61.5%), replacement of SSC (36.3%), and
SSC recementation (2.2%). Most common diagnoses for extraction of SSC restored teeth was
46
secondary to periodontal disease (44.6%), followed by pulpal pathology/necrosis (37.5%) and
caries (14.3%) [See Table 21 Below].
Table 21 showing the breakdown of diagnoses of SSC restoration recorded failures
Table 22 below demonstrating the extraction of the 25 SSC restored teeth secondary to
periodontal disease was from 15 patients. Similarly, the 37 amalgam restored teeth that were
extracted due to periodontal disease was from 15 patients. Five of the fifteen patients had both
SSC and amalgam restored teeth extracted secondary to periodontal disease.
Number of SSC and AM Extractions from Periodontal Disease Recorded Per Patient
1 SSC 2 SSC 3 SSC 4 SSC 5 SSC 6 SSC 7 SSC Total (25 SSC) Number of
Patients
11
1
2
0
0
1
0
15 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM Total (37 AM)
Number of Patients
8
1
3
1
0
0
2
15
Table 22 showing the distribution of SSC and amalgam (AM) extractions secondary to periodontal disease per patient
Number and Percentage of SSC Failures Result of
Reported Failure Number of Failures Percentage
(/91) Recementation 2 2.2 Replacement 33 36.3 Extractions 56 61.5
Diagnoses for Reported SSC Failures Recementation Replacement Extraction
Diagnosis Provided for
Given Failure
Number of
Diagnoses
Percentage (/91)
Number of Diagnoses
Percentage (/91)
Number of Diagnoses
Percentage (/91)
Caries 0 0 1 1.1 8 8.8 Loose/Lost SSC 2 2.2 20 21.2 2 2.2 SSC Perforation 0 0 12 13.2 0 0.0 Pulpal pathology/ Necrosis
0 0 0 0 21 23.1
Periodontal disease
0 0 0 0 25 27.5
Total 2 2.2 33 36.3 56 61.5
47
There were 29 (3.8%) SSC occlusal perforations recorded, 12 were replaced with new SSCs and
classified as failures. The remaining 17 received occlusal amalgam repairs and were not
classified as failures of the SSCs, or as conventional amalgam restorations [Page 110, Table 23].
(ii) Failed Dental Restorations: Amalgam Restorations
From the combined pre-existing and new AM restoration records, replacement of restoration
434/672 (64.6%) accounted for the most AM failures; with 259 (59.6%) replaced with SSCs, 49
(11.3%) and 126 (29.0%) replaced with AM restorations of same, and greater extent
respectively. Table 24 on page 111 depicts the diagnoses for specific amalgam restoration
failures that were replaced with new restorations.
The remaining 35.4% of AM failures resulted in extractions. Caries was the primary diagnosis
recorded in 78.4% of all documented AM restoration failures (57.1% for replacements and
21.3% for extractions). From the 238 teeth restored with AM that were extracted; 143 had caries,
38 had pulpal pathology/necrosis, 37 had periodontal disease, 1 had loose/lost restoration and 1
had restoration fracture [See Table 25 Below].
48
Number and Percentage of AM Failures Result of Reported Failure Number of
Failures Percentage
(Replacement & Extractions/672) (Replacement Material /434)
Replacement 434 64.6 With SSC 259 59.6 With AM (Same Extent) 49 11.3 With AM (Greater Extent) 126 29.0 With CR 0 0.0 With GI 0 0.0
Extractions 238 35.4 Total 672 100%
Diagnoses for Reported AM Failures Replacement Extraction
Diagnosis Provided for
Given Failure
Number of Diagnoses
Percentage (/672)
Number of Diagnoses
Percentage (/672)
Caries 384 57.1 143 21.3 Loose/Lost Restoration
0 0.0 1 0.2
Tooth Fracture 29 4.3 18 2.7 Restoration Fracture
18 2.7 1 0.2
Pre-existing restoration (Inadequate)
2 0.3 0 0.0
Pre-existing SSC (Inadequate)
1 0.2 0 0.0
Pulpal pathology/ Necrosis
0 0.0 38 5.7
Periodontal disease
0 0.0 37 5.5
Total 434 64.6 238 35.4
Table 25 showing the breakdown and diagnoses of amalgam restoration failures
(iii) Failed Dental Restorations: Composite Resin Restorations
From the combined pre-existing and new CR restoration records, replacement of restoration
94/120 (78.3%) accounted for the most CR failures; with 57 (60.6%) replaced with SSCs, 35
(37.2%) and 2 (2.1%) replaced with AM and CR (same extent) restorations respectively. The
remaining 21.7% of CR failures resulted in extractions. Caries was the most reported diagnosis
49
for all the documented CR restoration failures, accounting for 91.7% (74.2% for replacements
and 17.5% for extractions). From the 26 teeth restored with CR that were extracted; 21 had
caries, 3 had pulpal pathology/necrosis and 2 had tooth fracture [See Table 26 Below]. Table 27
on page 112 depicts the diagnoses for specific composite resin restoration failures that were
replaced with new restorations.
Number and Percentage of CR Failures Result of Reported Failure Number of
Failures Percentage
(Replacement & Extractions/120) (Replacement Material /94)
Replacement 94 78.3 With SSC 57 60.6 With AM 35 37.2 With CR (Same Extent) 2 2.1 With CR (Greater Extent) 0 0 With GI 0 0
Extractions 26 21.7 Total 120 100
Diagnoses for Reported CR Failures Replacement Extraction
Diagnosis Provided for
Given Failure
Number of Diagnoses
Percentage (/120)
Number of Diagnoses
Percentage (/120)
Caries 89 74.2 21 17.5 Loose/Lost Restoration
1 0.8 0 0.0
Tooth Fracture 4 3.3 2 1.7 Restoration Fracture
0 0.0 0 0.0
Pre-existing restoration (Inadequate)
0 0.0 0 0.0
Pre-existing SSC (Inadequate)
0 0.0 0 0.0
Pulpal pathology/ Necrosis
0 0.0 3 2.5
Periodontal disease
0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 94 78.3 26 21.7
Table 26 showing the breakdown and diagnoses of all composite resin restoration failures
50
(iv) Failed Dental Restorations: New versus Pre-Existing
From the 650 SSC restorations placed, 70 (10.8%) failures were reported, and from the 1011 AM
restorations placed, 372 (36.8%) failures were reported [Page 113 - 114, Table 28 & Figure 17].
From the pre-existing restorations records, 21/116 (18.1%) SSC, 300/640 (46.9%) AM and
119/201 (59.2%) CR restorations failed during patient follow up [Pages 115-116, Table 29 &
Figure 18].
(v) Summary Table
Number and Percentage of Failures Result of Reported Failure SSC
Number of Failures
(%)
Amalgam Number of
Failures (%)
Composite Resin Number of
Failures (%)
Recementation 2 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Replacement (Total) 33 (36.3) 434 (64.6) 94 (78.3)
With SSC 33 (36.3) 259 (38.5) 57 (47.5) With Amalgam (Same Extent)
0 (0.0) 49 (7.4) 35 (29.1)
With Amalgam (Greater Extent)
0 (0.0) 126 (18.7) 2 (1.7)
With Composite Resin 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Extractions 56 (61.5) 238 (35.4) 26 (21.7)
Table 30: Summary of Failed Dental Restorations (f) Ten Year Survival Rate Estimate
The 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for 766 pre-existing and new SSC restorations was
82.6% (78.8%, 85.9%) [Pages 117-118, Table 31 & Figure 19].
51
When pre-existing SSCs were excluded, the 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for the 650
new SSC restorations was 79.2% (73.0%, 84.2%) [Pages 119-120, Table 32 & Figure 20].
The 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for 116 pre-existing SSC restorations was 87.0%
(85.4%, 88.4%) [Pages 121-122, Table 33 & Figure 21].
The median follow-up for SSC restorations was 5.1 years, with an interquartile range (IQR) of
2.0-8.9, and min-max values of 0.0 – 33.1 years [Pages 123-125, Table 34, Figures 22 & 23].
The 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for 1651 pre-existing and new AM restorations was
76.9% (72.0%, 81.1%) [Pages 126-127, Table 35 & Figure 24].
When pre-existing AMs were excluded, the 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for the 1011
new AM restorations was 63.5% (55.7%, 70.4%) [Pages 128-129, Table 36 & Figure 25].
The 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for 640 pre-existing AM restorations was 63.6%
(50.1%, 74.3%) [Pages 130-131, Table 37 & Figure 26].
The median follow-up for AM restorations was 6.9 years with IQR of 2.9-13.4, and min-max
values of 0.0 – 38.9 years [Pages 123-125, Table 34, Figures 22 & 23].
As only 3 CR restorations were placed at MSH Dentistry Clinic, only the 201 pre-existing CR
restorations could be analyzed. The 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for the 201 pre-
existing CRs was 37.0% (14.3%, 60.2%) [Pages 132-133, Table 38 & Figure 27]. The median
follow-up for CR restorations was 2.3 years with IQR of 0.7-5.6, and min-max values of 0.0 –
27.2 years [Pages 123-125, Table 34, Figures 22 & 23].
52
Figure 28 on page 134 compared the survival rate estimates between all SSC and AM
restorations. Figure 29 below demonstrated the survival curve for new SSC and AM restorations.
In both, the survival curve dropped off more quickly for the AM restorations, which indicated a
greater hazard for AM as compared to the SSC restorations.
Figure 29 showing the survival curve comparison between new amalgam and SSC restorations
Figure 30 below compared the survival rate estimates between pre-existing SSC, AM and CR
restorations. The survival curve for the CR restorations considerably fell within the first 5 years,
as compared to the relative success of both AM and SSC restorations.
53
Figure 30 showing the survival curve comparison between pre-existing amalgam, composite resin and SSC restorations
Survival rate estimates were conducted for new SSC and AM restorations by age at placement
(Pages 135-138, Tables 39 & 40 and Figures 31 & 32), gender (Pages 139 -142, Tables 41 & 42
and Figures 33 & 34) and location (Pages 143-146, Tables 43 & 44 and Figures 35 & 36). None
of these variables revealed a clinically meaningful difference to the survival of the respective
restoration types.
Across all analyses, combined, new and pre-existing, SSC restorations had a greater survival rate
estimate as compared to AM and CR.
54
(g) Crude Success Rates for New SSC and Amalgam Restorations
The crude success rate during patient follow-up was 89.2% for the 650 new SSC restorations and
61.5% for the 1011 new AM restorations [Page 147, Table 45 & Figure 37].
55
2. Part 2: Radiographic Assessment of SSC Restorations
Sixty-one patients had at least one post-SSC radiograph, representing 245 radiographs captured
(127 bitewing films; 118 periapical films). See Images 1-4 for examples of digitized bitewing
and periapical films used for analyses.
Images 1 and 2: Radiographic examples of bitewing films from two different patients used to
measure alveolar bone loss from mesial and distal sites of the respective SSC restored teeth. Sites
were recorded for tooth 46 from Image 1, and tooth 37 from Image 2. Red arrows in Image 1 are
identifying the CEJ.
Images 3 and 4: Radiographic example of periapical films from the same patient taken prior to
and following SSC restorations used to record PAI scores. PAI scores were recorded for teeth 46
and 47 from this example.
56
(a) Alveolar Bone Loss Measurements
From the 127 bitewing (BW) radiographs, the mean alveolar bone loss recorded from mesial and
distal sites of SSC restored teeth was 1.36mm (0.54 – 2.84) and 1.40mm (0.53-3.78)
respectively.
One hundred twenty-six (99.2%) of distal sites and 100.0% of mesial sites measured 3mm or
less, with the majority for both recorded within the 1.01 – 1.50mm range.
From the alveolar bone loss measurements recorded from the distal site, 117 were regarded as
normal (non-resorbed) and 10 as resorbed (>2mm).
From the alveolar bone loss measurements recorded from the mesial site, 119 were regarded as
normal (non-resorbed) and 8 as resorbed (>2mm) (See Table 46 Below).
Site of Measurement
Alveolar Bone Loss
Measurement (mm)
Mesial Site
of SSC
Distal Site
of SSC
Total (/254)
Number Percentage
0.00 - 1.00 27 26 53 20.8 1.01 - 1.50 57 49 106 41.7 1.51 - 2.00 36 42 78 30.7 2.01 - 3.00 7 9 16 6.3 3.01 - 4.00 0 1 1 0.3
Total 127 127 254 100
Table 46 showing the frequency of alveolar bone loss measurements surrounding SSC restored teeth from mesial and distal sites
57
(b) Periapical Index (PAI) Scores and Pulpal Status of SSC restored teeth
From the 59 Pre-SSC periapical (PA) radiographs, fifty had a PAI score of 1 with normal
periapical structure, and nine had a PAI score of 2, indicative of small changes in periodontal
bone structure.
From the 59 Post- SSC PA radiographs, forty-nine had a PAI score of 1 with normal periapical
structure, and ten had a PAI score of 2, indicative of small changes in the periodontal bone
structure.
PAI score changes were recorded for 13 SSC restorations; seven worsened slightly from 1 to 2
and six improved from 2 to 1. The PAI scores for the remaining 46 SSC restorations remained
unchanged.
The mean (SE) of 59 PA radiograph pre-post intervals was 8.4 years (0.39), with a range of 1.0 –
29.1 years [Page 148, Table 47].
58
F. DISCUSSION
1. Stainless Steel Crown Restorations
Minimal published data exists demonstrating the clinical and radiographic outcomes of stainless
steel crown (SSC) restorations on the permanent posterior dentition. This retrospective cohort
study was the first investigation to assess the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the
SSC as a posterior permanent tooth restoration. This study has fulfilled the proposed aims and
objectives as follows:
1) The SSC restoration of the permanent posterior dentition demonstrated a high clinical 10-year
survival rate estimate of 82.6% (combined), 79.2% (new) and 87.0% (pre-existing), with a
median follow-up period of 5.1 years (0 – 33.1 years).
2) There were 883 failed restorations from the 2621 combined pre-existing and new restorations
reported, including 120 (58.8%) CRs, 672 (40.7%) AMs, and 91 (11.9%) SSCs.
3) The most common reported failure of the SSC led to extraction (61.5%), followed by
replacement of SSC (36.3%), and SSC recementation (2.2%). The most common diagnoses for
extraction was secondary to periodontal disease (44.6%), followed by pulpal pathology/necrosis
(37.5%), and caries (14.3%).
4) The SSC restoration of the permanent posterior dentition demonstrated a superior survival rate
estimate as compared to amalgam restorations (10-year survival rate estimate of 76.9%
(combined AM), 63.5% (new AM), and 63.6% (pre-existing AM).
59
5) The pre-existing SSC restoration of the permanent posterior dentition demonstrated a superior
10-year survival rate estimate (87.0%) as compared to the pre-existing amalgam (63.6%) and
composite resin restorations (37.0%).
6) Replacement of restoration was the most commonly reported result of AM and CR restoration
failures; 434/672 (64.6%) and 94/120 (78.3%) respectively. The remaining 35.4% of AM and
21.7% of CR failures resulted in extractions.
7) There were 259 (59.6%) and 57 (60.6%) failed AM and CR restorations respectively that were
replaced with SSCs.
8) From the 127 BW radiographs, the mean alveolar bone loss recorded from mesial and distal
sites of SSC restored teeth was 1.36mm (0.54-2.84) and 1.40mm (0.53-3.78) respectively. Mesial
and distal alveolar bone loss was recorded as 3mm or less in 99.6% of cases.
9) From the 118 PA radiographs evaluated prior and following the placement of SSC restorations
over a mean interval of 8.4 years (1.0 - 29.1); the recorded PAI scores documented were 1 or 2,
indicative of periodontal structures that were within normal limits.
The results of this study revealed that SSCs are effective, durable and should be recommended as
a treatment option for full coronal restoration of the posterior permanent dentition. Despite not
being a lab-fabricated restoration, the SSC had a negligible effect on the surrounding
periodontium, while maintaining the vitality of the respective tooth. Compared to conventional
multisurface intra coronal restorations, whether pre-existing or placed at the MSH Clinic, the
SSC restoration demonstrated the greatest success, survival and performance.
60
(a) Stainless Steel Crown Reported Failures
The 271 subjects in the study comprised 766 SSCs that included 116 pre-existing and 650 newly
placed restorations at the MSH Dentistry Clinic. There were 91 (11.9%) reported failures of the
SSC restoration, which resulted in extraction (61.5%) and replacement of the SSC (36.3%). The
most common diagnoses for extractions were secondary to periodontal disease (25/56), followed
by pulpal pathology/necrosis (21/56).
Periodontal disease was documented when treatment was conducted without the notation of
caries, tooth or restoration fracture, pulpal pathology or necrosis. This may be considered as a
censored failure of the SSC restoration as the tooth was extracted due to the mobility of the
tooth, unrelated to the SSC restoration but deemed as a failure secondary to extraction. There
were 25 SSC restored teeth extracted due to chronic periodontal disease. Fourteen of these
extractions were from four patients. Similarly, seven patients accounted for 29 of the 37 AM
restored tooth extractions due to periodontal disease. For both SSC and AM, fifteen patients
accounted for each of the respective total extractions, to which five patients (33.3%) had both
SSC and AM restored teeth extracted. This demonstrated a cluster failure effect that further
supported the diagnosis of chronic periodontal disease unrelated to the type of restoration placed.
It is difficult to know whether the SSC restored teeth that were assessed as failures and extracted
due to pulpal pathology and necrosis (21/56) had pre-existing pulpal pathology without
radiographic periapical involvement. Eighty six percent (559/650) of SSCs placed were due to
the presence of caries and of these, 271 were placed secondary to failed conventional
restorations. Furthermore, the patient demographic did not allow for reliable vitality testing to be
conducted, or accurate patient feedback regarding symptoms commonly associated with pulpitis.
61
However, with clinical and radiographic results combined, only 2.7% (21/766) of all SSCs
demonstrated pulpal pathology/necrosis, thus supporting SSCs maintenance of tooth vitality.
Recementation was considered a failure as it was assumed that the initial placement was
inadequate in its adaptation/cementation and required subsequent removal, re-adaptation and
cementation. This was a reported failure for two SSC restorations (2.2%) in the present study.
Interestingly, occlusal perforation of the SSC was recorded in only 29 instances (3.8%), in a
population of whom 79.0% had documented grinding habits. From the recorded occlusal
perforations, 12 were regarded as failures as they were replaced with new SSC restorations. The
remaining 17 occlusal perforations were repaired with AM and were not regarded as failures, as
the SSC remained intact with sealed margins, and in the absence of recurrent decay or pathology.
These amalgam restorations were not considered in the overall amalgam analyses, as they were
not deemed as conventional restorations. These designations were in agreement with previous
publications that defined survival as the crown remaining in situ with or without modification
during the entire observation period (De Backer et al., 2007; Pjetursson et al., 2007; Van
Nieuwenhuysen et al., 2003).
In contrast, Roberts & Sherriff (1990), considered the occlusal perforation of a permanent SSC to
be a failure of the restoration. As such, in their evaluation of 43 permanent molar SSCs over a
10-year period, a single failure was reported due to the occlusal perforation of a SSC (Roberts
and Sherriff, 1990). Despite differences in definitions of failure, Roberts & Sherriff (1990) had a
comparable prevalence of SSC occlusal perforation to that reported in the present study, 2.3%
and 3.8% respectively. Unfortunately due to their small sample size of 43 permanent SSC
restorations, they were unable to conduct a survival analysis.
62
(b) Stainless Steel Crown Survival Analysis
The present study was the first to demonstrate a survival analysis for the SSC restoration as a
viable restoration for permanent posterior teeth. The survival rate estimate could be predicted
accurately up to 14 years using both combined and new SSC restorations, and up to 18 years
based on data obtained from pre-existing SSC restorations.
The 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for 766 pre-existing and new SSC restorations was
82.6% (78.8%, 85.9%) with a median follow-up of 5.1 years and range of 0 – 33.1 years. When
pre-existing SSCs were excluded, the 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for the 650 new
SSC restorations was 79.2% (73.0%, 84.2%).
Ten-year survival rate estimates for SSC restorations of the primary dentition did not exist. In
order to compare the permanent SSC survival to that commonly reported for the primary
dentition, the survival estimates for two, five and eight years were assessed. As such, the newly
placed permanent SSC had predicted survival rate estimates of 97.2%, 92.7%, and 87.5% at 2, 5
and 8 years respectively. The combined and pre-existing permanent SSC had similar results. The
survival rate estimates provided for the permanent SSC restoration was either comparable or
outperformed that reported for SSCs placed in the primary dentition. Einwag & Dunninger
(1996) stated the survival rate of SSCs placed in the primary dentition was 90.0% after 4.5 years,
and 83.0% after 8 years (Einwag and Dunninger, 1996). Roberts and Sherriff (1990),
documented a similar 5-year survival rate of 92.2%(Roberts and Sherriff, 1990). In addition, Al-
Eheideb & Herman documented a survival rate of 95.5% for SSC over a period of 27 months
(Al-Eheideb and Herman, 2003).
63
In order to compare the SSC restoration to treatments that would be performed more commonly
on the posterior permanent dentition, literature was compared which included the use of cast full
metal lab fabricated crowns. Van Nieuwenhuysen et al. (2003) conducted a long-term evaluation
of permanent dentition restorations, which included 722 amalgams, 115 composite resins and 89
FMCs. The reported 75% survival time for the FMC restoration was 11 years, notably superior to
that for the conventional restorations, reported as 2 and 6.5 years for CR and AM, respectively
(Van Nieuwenhuysen et al., 2003). The SSC restoration as documented in the present study
appeared to perform superior to that of the FMC. As for the new SSC restorations, the 75%
survival time equated to 12 years, and between 12-14 years for pre-existing SSC restorations.
The 75% survival time for the combined pre-existing and new SSC data could not be accurately
predicted from the respective survival curves, as it would coincide with a time point greater than
14 years.
Pjetursson et al., (2007) conducted a meta-analysis assessing the 5-year survival rates of all-
ceramic single crowns as compared to the survival rates of PFM crowns. Similar to the
definitions used in this present study, survival was defined as the crown remaining in situ with or
without modification during the entire observation period.
For all-ceramic crowns and for PFM, 430/6006 and 160/1765 crowns were reported as lost,
translating to a 5-year survival of 93.3% and 95.6% respectively. These results were comparable
to the study of SSC restorations, with the 5-year survival of 93.8% (combined SSC), 92.7% (new
SSC), and 94.9% (pre-existing SSC).
Lastly, De Backer et al. in 2006 investigated 456 patients, comprised of 1036 full crowns (cast
gold or PFM) that were evaluated over a sample period of 18-years. Similar to the present study
64
(86.0%), the most common reason for full crown preparation was the extensive loss of crown
structure due to caries (65.9%). The reported survival rates after 12 years for the FMC/PFM
restorations was 86.4% (molars) and 86.6% (premolars). This was one of the few studies
reported which demonstrated greater survival estimates than the SSC restoration.
The 12-year survival rate estimate for the SSC restoration was between 75.4 -79.6%, dependent
on whether assessed from the combined, new, or pre-existing SSC survival curves. Potential
reasons for the discrepancy could be from the different population demographics, as the
aforementioned study was comprised of healthy adults with good oral hygiene, attending a
graduate prosthodontics specialty clinic, and many of which received multiple full coverage
restorations. In addition, De Backer et al., classified failures as irreversible (true) if the full
crown or tooth was lost, however considered recementation a reversible complication and was
not regarded as a failure. It is unclear through the documentation of the report as to what
percentage was classified as having reversible complications, although stated within the results
was that 69.0% had loss of retention (De Backer et al., 2006). This could potentially change the
survival analysis that was conducted, had recementation been considered as a true failure.
2. Conventional Restorative Treatments
(a) Conventional Restoration Reported Failures
For the survival assessment of conventional restorative treatments of the posterior permanent
dentition in this study, a failure was considered to have occurred if endodontic therapy,
replacement, placement of a different restoration, or extraction was conducted. Replacement of
the restoration, utilizing the same material and extent (i.e. replacing a mesio-occlusal amalgam
with a mesio-occlusal amalgam), was considered a failure of the restoration. The main reason
65
reported for replacement was the presence of caries. It can be postulated that the initial
restoration may not have been placed in an ideal manner predisposing it to subsequent failure.
Replacement of the restoration, utilizing the same material but requiring more restorative
material for a larger restoration (i.e. removing a mesio-occlusal amalgam to place a mesio-
occlusal-distal amalgam) was also considered a failure for the purposes of statistical analyses and
calculation of accurate survival estimates. However, these 126 amalgam failures may potentially
be considered as censored data, as the previous restoration may have only been removed to
permit the inclusion of new areas of decay adjacent to the existing restoration. As such, one
cannot say that these were in fact true failures of the restoration. Conversely, had the study not
classified this treatment as a true failure, the survival analyses for the 126 amalgams could have
been embellished, as the replacement of the restoration would not have been counted as a failure.
The definitions used in this study were consistent with those reported in other longevity studies
of conventional restorations and allowed for comparison of results (Opdam et al., 2010; Opdam
et al., 2007; Simecek et al., 2009; Van Nieuwenhuysen et al., 2003).
(b) Survival Analysis of Conventional Restorations
From the present study, the 10-year survival rate estimate (95% CI) for 1651 combined pre-
existing and new AM restorations was 76.9% (72.0%, 81.1%) with a median follow-up of 6.9
years (0 – 38.9 years). When pre-existing AMs were excluded, the 10-year survival rate estimate
(95% CI) for the 1011 new AM restorations was 63.5% (55.7%, 70.4%). The survival rate
estimate could be predicted up to 30 years from the combined, new and pre-existing AM
restorations.
66
The 30-year survival rate estimates (95% CI) for the AM restorations was 27.1% (8.0%, 51.0%)
for new, 37.1% (11.4%, 63.5%) for pre-existing, and 53.5% (35.9%, 68.3%) for the combined.
As only 3 CR restorations were placed at MSH Dentistry Clinic, only the 201 pre-existing CR
restorations could be analyzed. From the 201 pre-existing CR restorations, the 10-year survival
rate estimate (95% CI) was 37.0% (14.3%, 60.2%) with a median follow-up of 2.3 years (0 –
27.3 years). The survival rate estimate could be accurately predicted up to 30 years (95% CI);
15.5% (5.3%, 30.7%). These results were similar to those reported by Opdam et al. (2010), in
which the 12 –year survival estimate was stratified by the patient’s caries risk. For the patients
documented as having high caries risk, the twelve-year survival estimate for AM restorations
was 62.8%, whereas for CR restorations was 66.8% (Opdam et al., 2010). Especially in the high
caries risk group, caries was more frequently reported as the reason for failure for CR as
compared to AM restorations. This trend was consistent in the present study and with other
studies demonstrating increased rates of secondary caries adjacent to CR restorations in high
caries risk populations (Simecek et al., 2009; Soncini et al., 2007; Van Nieuwenhuysen et al.,
2003). Opdam et al. postulated the reason for greater success of the CR restoration within their
study, was that fewer surfaces were involved, as compared to the larger AM restorations.
Aside from the studies by Opdam et al., the majority of reported literature coincides closer with
the findings from Simecek et al. (2009), Soncini et al. (2007) and the present study. All
demonstrated greater success and longevity of the AM restoration over the CR restoration for the
posterior permanent dentition.
In addition, a consensus existed amongst survival studies of the primary posterior dentition,
which demonstrated the superior success and longevity of the SSC as compared to that of
67
conventional restorations (Braff, 1975; Dawson et al., 1981; Eriksson et al., 1988; Messer and
Levering, 1988; Roberts and Sherriff, 1990; Seale and Randall, 2015). Roberts & Sherriff (1990)
assessed the 5-year survival rate of SSC and Class II AM restorations placed in the primary
posterior dentition. The reported 5-year survival rates of the primary SSC restoration was 92.2%,
Class II AM was 80.7%. In light of the paucity of literature concerning the comparison of SSC
and conventional restorations of the posterior permanent dentition, the results from the
aforementioned studies were evaluated together. Combined, they supported the results found in
the present study, which demonstrated the greater performance and survival of the SSC as
compared to conventional restorations at each respective time point of analyses. In the survival
curve comparing new SSC and AM restorations, there is an apparent greater hazard for AM as
the curve descended more rapidly. This relationship was again repeated in the survival curves of
the pre-existing restorations where the CR had the greatest hazard, followed by AM and then
SSC restorations.
(c) Replacement of Conventional Restorations with SSCs
In the present study, extraction represented the majority of SSC failures (61.5%), whereas this
was reported in only 35.4% and 21.7% of AM and CR failures respectively. For the conventional
restorations, it was more common for replacements to be performed rather than extractions.
Interestingly, the SSC restoration was primarily used to replace both AM (59.6%) and CR
(60.6%) failed restorations. As such, the SSC could be viewed as the restoration of last resort;
when the caries were extensive, or conventional restorations had failed, it was the SSC that could
still reliably be placed. It should also be noted that had the SSC not been available, there could
68
have been a greater number of extractions following the failure of conventional restorations.
3. Radiographic Evaluation
The present study was the first to investigate the pulpal status of SSC restored permanent teeth
and the potential effect on the surrounding periodontium.
(a) Pulpal Status of SSC Restored Teeth
The pulpal status was evaluated from 118 periapical radiographs with a median duration of 8.4
years (1.0 – 29 years), taken prior and following the placement of a SSC restoration. The widely
utilized Periapical Index (PAI) scoring system developed by Orstavik (1986) was used to
determine the absence, presence, or transformation of disease state.
From the 59 Pre-SSC periapical (PA) radiographs, fifty had a PAI score of 1 with normal
periapical structure, and nine had a PAI score of 2, indicative of small changes in periodontal
bone structure. As reported throughout the endodontic literature, a PAI score of 1-2 was
commonly regarded as healthy, healed or minimally inflamed, whereas a score of 3-5 was
diseased (Kerosuo and Orstavik, 1997; Orstavik et al., 1986; Ridao-Sacie et al., 2007; Trope et
al., 1999). The results from this study revealed 100.0% of the teeth evaluated, both prior and
following the placement of SSC, to be healthy, healed, or minimally inflamed.
Interestingly, for 13 SSC restorations, there was a near split between the respective PAI scores
changing in both positive and negative directions. Seven worsened slightly from 1 to 2, and six
improved from 2 to 1. Although all maintained a healthy overall score. It may be speculated that
for the six that improved, the full coverage crown may have provided an optimal protected
69
environment that could foster pulpal repair, minimize inflammation and preserve the vitality of
the tooth. As for the seven that worsened, it may be postulated that these teeth may have had
signs of pulpal inflammation not visible on a radiograph prior to the placement of the SSC
restoration.
(b) Alveolar Bone Measurements of SSC Restored Teeth
The measurement of alveolar bone loss on BW radiographs recorded from the alveolar crest to
cementoenamel junction was a consistently utilized outcome measure across the literature in both
primary and permanent dentitions. It was further agreed upon that a distance of 2mm or less was
to be considered healthy/non-resorbed, whereas a distance greater than 2mm was to be
considered as resorbed/diseased (Bimstein et al., 1988; Bimstein and Garcia-Godoy, 1994;
Bimstein et al., 1993; Bimstein et al., 1996; Knoernschild and Campbell, 2000; Sharaf and Farsi,
2004). In the present study, ninety-three percent of the 254 mesial and distal sites recorded from
the 127 SSC restored teeth were classified as healthy/non-resorbed. Sixteen sites measured
between 2.01-3.00mm, and a single site was greater than 3.01mm.
The findings from this study coincided with previously published work that evaluated alveolar
bone loss surrounding SSC restored primary molars (Bimstein, 1992; Bimstein et al., 1988;
Bimstein and Garcia-Godoy, 1994; Bimstein et al., 1996; Sharaf and Farsi, 2004). These studies
examined various parameters and confirmed that crown marginal extension or adaptation,
preservation of tight proximal contacts, or duration of crown existence did not significantly
affect interproximal bone resorption.
70
(c) Limitations of Radiographic Evaluation
For the present study, it should be noted that due to poor cooperation, all active patients at the
MSH Clinic did not have diagnostic radiographs available for analysis. Further, some patients
whom required diagnoses and treatment under general anesthetic had a limited number of
radiographs, as the frequency of radiographs was dependent on the frequency of GA procedures.
Besides alveolar bone loss and PAI scores, there was no evaluation of the quality of the SSC
restoration in terms of adequacy or inadequacy. Conversely, Sharaf and Farsi (2004), recorded
the quality of the SSC as either adequate when all margins were smooth and well adapted
covering all dentin, or inadequate, when crown margins appeared too short, extended below the
CEJ, or away from the tooth surface by more than 1 mm (Sharaf and Farsi, 2004). However, the
present study was the first to examine alveolar bone loss surrounding SSC restorations, and
despite not being lab-fabricated demonstrated negligible effects on the surrounding
periodontium.
4. Data Analysis
(a) Agreement Analysis
Agreement analysis for transcription accuracy was conducted during the pilot trials to ensure
standardization of the primary investigator. Inter and intra- rater reliability utilizing Cohen’s
Kappa test was not appropriate for this data set, as there were minimal categorical variables that
had subjective basis(Landis and Koch, 1977).
71
(b) Inferential Statistics
Inferential statistics could be applicable to the comparison of the longevities between restoration
types, and/or the comparison of longevities for various subgroups. However, no inferential
analyses were conducted, as the data was hierarchical in nature: restorations within teeth, and
teeth within a patient. Further, subjects could contribute observations of more than one type of
restoration, tooth location, and more than one age at placement.
(c) Cox Proportional Hazards Model and Logrank Tests
Due to the aforementioned hierarchical nature of data, there were no pre-programmed procedures
in SAS that could fit a Cox Proportional Hazards (PH) model. Prior to fitting such a model, it
was important to ascertain whether the assumptions underlying the model were met. This could
be done in SAS.
The following checks were programmed in SAS:
1. Proportional hazards assumption:
a. Log Cumulative Hazard Plots: For each covariate, the log of the cumulative hazard
was plotted against longevity. If the proportional hazards assumption holds, these
curves should be parallel to one another and the distance between them should remain
constant over time.
b. Cumulative Hazard Plots: For each covariate, one level serves as a reference. The
cumulative hazard plot for each of the other levels of this covariate is plotted against
the cumulative hazard function for the reference level. If the proportional hazards
assumption holds, these plots should resemble straight lines.
72
c. Plot of Differences in Log Cumulative Hazards: For each covariate, one level serves
as a reference. The difference between the log cumulative hazard for this level and
each other level is calculated. These differences are plotted against longevity. If the
proportional hazards assumption holds, then the plots should remain constant over
time.
2. Presence of outliers:
a. Deviance Residual Plots: The deviance residuals are plotted against the risk score
(𝛽!𝑥). Outliers are detected in the usual manner.
3. Presence of influential observations:
a. For each covariate, the DFBetas are plotted against observation number. Influential
observations are those lying away from the main body of observations
4. Overall Model Fit:
a. The cumulative hazard function of the Cox-Snell residuals is plotted against the Cox-
Snell residuals. If the model fits well, this plot should appear as a straight line through
the origin.
It would have been desirable to conduct a statistical test for the equality of longevities for the
different restoration types. A logrank test however was not possible because the groups
(restoration types) were not independent of one another. Each subject/tooth combination could
contribute observations to any, or all of the different restoration types.
A test for differences could be carried out within the context of a regression model, if a suitable
model could be found. There was an R package that fits Cox PH models to data with up to 2
levels of hierarchy with random effects (frailties). However, as mentioned above, prior to fitting
the model, the necessary assumptions must be checked.
73
Three cases were considered within the present studies analysis: (i) new restorations only, (ii)
pre-existing restorations only, and (iii) new and pre-existing restorations combined.
The plots used to make a visual assessment of the proportional hazards assumption revealed
serious departures from proportionality in all three cases. The hazards for amalgam and
composite resin restorations could potentially be assumed to be proportional in cases (ii) and
(iii). However, the hazards for amalgam and SSC restorations (and composite resin vs. SSC
restorations) could not be considered to be proportional.
In each of the three cases, there were a large number of influential observations. Had there been
just a few, it would be reasonable to remove them to see what effect, if any, they might have on
the PH assumption. However, it did not seem reasonable to remove a larger quantity of
observations unless there was a good clinical reason.
For these reasons, the Cox PH modelling to test for differences in restoration type longevities did
not proceed any further.
(d) Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards (PH) Regression for Each Restoration Type
For new restorations, the possibility of fitting a Cox PH model separately to the amalgam and
SSC longevities was investigated in order to examine the joint effect of age, gender, location
(upper vs. lower and right vs. left) on longevity. Based on the product-limit estimate plots, one
could appreciate the survival curves for female and male genders were nearly identical, for both
amalgam and SSC restorations. One would therefore expect that the proportional hazards
assumption would hold for gender. The same could be said for the remaining covariates (age,
location (upper vs. lower and right vs. left).
74
For amalgam restorations, one could make a case for proceeding to a Cox PH regression as all of
the assumption checks were either met, or nearly met.
For SSC restorations, the assumption checks were not as straightforward to interpret. Some of
the plots indicated there could be departures from the assumptions, and the overall fit may not be
as good as it could be. However, it’s possible that the plots were affected by the relatively small
number of SSC failures. There were also a fairly large number of the observations that were
outliers and/or were overly influential. Had there been just a few, it would be reasonable to
remove them to see what effect, if any, they might have had on the assumptions. However, it did
not seem reasonable to remove a larger quantity of observations unless there was a good clinical
reason. Therefore, it did not seem reasonable to proceed with Cox PH regression for the SSC
restorations.
As multivariate regression was not one of the main objectives, the present data analysis did not
pursue fitting a model with these covariates, for either amalgam or SSC restorations. While there
are some statistical methodologies available for modeling multi-level hierarchy for censored
data, there was little software available for fitting such models. Further research would be
required to identify statistical methods and software appropriate for the structure of the data in
the current study.
5. Demographics and Implication for Practice
The study population included active, registered patients from Mount Sinai Hospital’s Dentistry
Clinic, which encompassed those with clearly identified disabilities or special needs. Eighty-
eight percent were reported as having four or more co-morbid conditions, and the potential
functional limitations for these patients included cognitive, receptive, expressive language,
75
learning, and/or motor ability deficits (Accardo et al., 2002; Merry and Edwards, 2002; World
Health Organization., 2001). Mental retardation was a captured co-morbid condition within the
comprehensive chart review, however is a term that has been eliminated from medical diagnoses.
According to the American Psychiatric Association’s fifth revision of its Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the term mental retardation has been replaced
with intellectual disability (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Sixty five percent of the patients were reported as being high caries risk with nearly 90.0%
having fair-poor oral hygiene. This agreed with other studies stating the known high prevalence
of caries and oral disease in adults with special needs (Chohayeb, 1985; S. Hulland and Sigal,
2000; Sigal and Sigal, 2006; Tesini, 1981). Sixty percent of the patients were taking a prescribed
medication, specifically a psychotropic agent, which are known to cause xerostomia and further
contributed to their high caries risk status (Sreebny and Schwartz, 1997). Assessing the success
of restorative treatments in a population that was at the greatest risk for restoration failure
provided additional credibility to the results. Although generalizability of results cannot be
claimed due to the unique nature of the study population, it can be postulated that the success of
the restorations would only improve in those with a lower caries risk status. For healthy
individuals requiring the use of general anesthetic for dental care, geriatric populations, or
persons with limited finances and/or dental coverage, one would expect the SSC restoration of a
posterior permanent tooth to be an effective long-term treatment option. As such, there should be
increased advocacy for the use and application of the SSC restoration. Beginning within
educational settings with core didactic and clinical curriculum to practicing clinicians,
governmental legislature and public health settings. The results from the present study support
the SSC to be recommended as the restoration of choice for failed conventional restorations and
76
multisurface decay of the permanent posterior dentition.
6. Limitations and Strengths
One of the limitations of the present study included the retrospective design relying on the
accuracy of clinical records and radiographs available in patient charts. The Evidence-Based
Medicine Levels of Evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, 2009) indicated that
the highest level of evidence (level 1a) is represented by a systematic review of randomized
controlled trials (RCTs). These rank the highest due to the fact that they are not susceptible to
bias. The second highest level of evidence (level 1b) described was a RCT with narrow
confidence intervals requiring a large sample size. Unfortunately, RCTs have disadvantages of
non-compliance and high dropout rates (Needleman et al., 2005). Randomized controlled trials
with dropout rates documented as greater than 20.0% are considered “low quality” RCTs.
Systematic reviews restricted to “high quality” RCTs included small number of RCTs and the
main conclusion commonly provided was that more high-quality RCTs are to be conducted. The
present design allowed for a larger sample size, with greater lengths of follow up to be studied.
In addition, multiple operators of varying years of practice performed all treatments conducted at
the MSH Clinic. This included recent graduates enrolled as one-year hospital dental residents,
rotating pediatric graduate students from the University of Toronto, and staff dentists. The
treatments were also conducted across a variety of settings, including within the clinic using
local anaesthesia and in the operating room with general anaesthetic. The potential advantage of
multiple operators, and multiple environments would be that the outcome is more likely due to a
superior technique rather than a superior single operator.
77
Another strength of this study was that the chart and radiographic analysis relied solely upon the
principal investigator. In order to standardize the PI’s chart entry and radiographic analysis, a
standardization and agreement analysis was completed. Agreement analysis revealed a high level
of agreement between raters with a score of 98.4% for the chart review and 100.0% for
radiographic assessment. A single investigator was responsible for all data collection thereby
minimizing the risk of variance versus using multiple research assistants.
Other potential limitations of this study included that it was single-centered encompassing
philosophies of practice that could introduce bias, specific to the treatments provided. The fact
that patients did not always have routine follow up was an additional limitation. Ideally patients
would have had routine clinical and radiographic follow up of their treated teeth. This is in part
due to the unique patient demographic of the sample population and in part that some patients
returned to their local community dentists for continued recall care. Another limitation of the
present study was not having access to dental information prior to the patient’s enrollment at the
MSH Dentistry Clinic. As such, there were “pre-existing” restorations that were designated as
censored data. A limitation of interpreting this data was the length-sampling bias, as pre-existing
restorations had to survive long enough to be present at the initial visit at the MSH Clinic. As
such, longevity for these restorations was at least as long as what was recorded during follow-up
at the MSH Clinic.
7. Future Directions
In the current retrospective cohort investigation, the SSC restoration was assessed from active
registered patients at the MSH Dentistry Clinic. Further studies in the form of prospective, multi-
center clinical trials with healthy patients of all ages should be evaluated. All restorations of the
78
permanent posterior dentitions should be recorded over at least 10 years, with complete
documentation of diagnoses and treatment conducted.
Periodontal parameters and biomarkers of inflammation, including neutrophils and matrix
metalloproteinases, should be used to assess the gingival crevicular fluid surrounding dental
restorations (SSC vs. conventional restorations) to further explore the periodontal health.
Radiographs should be evaluated prior and following the placement of SSC restorations on the
permanent posterior dentition. Specifically, radiographic analyses of the SSC restoration in the
posterior permanent dentition should be conducted that evaluates the quality of the crown
restoration. This should include the documentation of marginal adaptation, coronal structure
coverage, crown length and whether located too short or long below the CEJ. These analyses can
then be further compared to the survival and outcomes of the SSC restoration. Together, this
could provide greater clinical and radiographic evidence to extend the generalizability in terms
of recommendations for the use of SSCs as a long-term permanent posterior tooth full coronal
coverage restoration.
79
G. CONCLUSIONS
1. The SSC restoration of the posterior permanent dentition demonstrated a high clinical 10-year
survival rate estimate of 82.6% (combined), 79.2% (new) and 87.0% (pre-existing), with a
median follow-up period of 5.1 years (0 – 33.1 years).
2. Caries was the most common diagnosis for the placement of SSCs (86.0%) and amalgam
restorations (98.0%).
3. The most common reported failure of the SSC led to extraction (61.5%), followed by
replacement of SSC (36.3%), and SSC recementation (2.2%).
4. The most common diagnoses for extraction of SSC restored teeth was due to periodontal
disease (44.6%), followed by pulpal pathology/necrosis (37.5%), and caries (14.3%).
5. Newly placed SSC restorations of the permanent posterior dentition demonstrated a superior
10-year survival rate estimate (79.2%) as compared to the newly placed amalgam restorations
(63.5%).
6. The combined newly placed and pre-existing SSC restoration of the permanent posterior
dentition demonstrated a 10-year survival rate estimate of 82.6%. This is superior when
compared to combined newly placed and pre-existing amalgam restorations (76.9%).
7. The pre-existing SSC restoration of the permanent posterior dentition demonstrated a superior
10-year survival rate estimate (87.0%) as compared to the pre-existing amalgam (63.6%) and
composite resin restorations (37.0%).
80
8. Replacement of restorations accounted for most amalgam and composite resin failures. The
SSC restoration was primarily used to replace both AM (59.6%) and CR (60.6%) failed
restorations.
9. With 99.6% of mesial and distal alveolar bone height measurements recorded as 3mm or less,
the SSC restoration demonstrated negligible effects on the surrounding periodontium.
10. With one hundred percent of the teeth evaluated prior and following the placement of SSC
restoration recorded with PAI scores of 1 or 2, the SSC restoration demonstrated negligible
effects on tooth vitality.
11. The SSC restoration represents an effective long-term treatment option for the restoration of
the permanent posterior dentition based on a large sample size and long follow-up period.
81
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Study Population and Gender Distribution
Gender N (%)
Male 160 (59.0%)
Female 111 (41.0%)
All 271
Figure 1. Gender distribution of study population
82
Table 2. Study Population Age Distribution Summary
Statistic Age at First MSH
Clinic Visit Age at First New
Restoration Age on
March 31, 2015
N 271 254 271
Mean (SE) 30.2 (0.85) 33.2 (0.91) 42.7 (0.92)
Median 24.5 29.0 44.0
Min - Max 6.7 - 77.4 9.9 - 79.7 15.5 - 81.9
Figure 2. Age of study population as of March 31st, 2015
83
Figure 3. Age of study population at first clinic visit (MSH Clinic)
Figure 4. Age of study population at time of first restoration (MSH Clinic)
84
Table 3. Distribution of Medical Conditions Amongst Study Population
Medical Condition
Number of Patients
with Condition
Percentage (/271)
ADD/ADHD/Autism (unspecified) 57 21.0 ADD 1 0.4 ADHD 4 1.5 Autism 53 19.6 Alzheimer’s Disease/Dementia 4 1.5 Cerebral Palsy 34 12.6 Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA/Stroke) 7 2.6 Craniofacial Anomaly 13 4.8 Cognitive impairment (ex. Memory/concentration) 224 82.7 Developmental Delay 214 79.0 Down’s Syndrome 13 4.8 Facial pain disorders 5 1.9 Fainting spells 2 0.7 Hearing disorder 18 6.6 Malignant hyperthermia 1 0.4 Mental Retardation (Unspecified=1) 211 77.9 Mild Mental Retardation (2) 56 20.7 Moderate Mental Retardation (3) 75 27.7 Severe/profound Mental Retardation (4) 80 29.5 Migraine or Recurring headaches 3 1.1 Multiple Sclerosis 4 1.5 Muscular Dystrophy 2 0.7 Parkinson’s disease 0 0.0 Psychiatric disorder 37 13.7 Seizures/Epilepsy 98 36.2 Sight disorder (not correctable with glasses) 23 8.5 Sleep problems 0 0.0 Spina Bifida 0 0.0 Traumatic/Acquired Head or Brain injury 13 4.8
Has Shunt 10 3.7 CNS Other 0 0.0 Anemia 10 3.7 Angina/chest pains 1 0.4 Artificial/prosthetic heart value or artery/vein 4 1.5 Bleeding or clotting disorder (Unspecified) 3 1.1 Haemophilia (2) 1 0.4 Sickle cell anemia (3) 1 0.4 Thalassemia (4) 0 0.0
85
Other (5) 1 0.4 Prolonged bleeding (ex. after cut or extraction) 2 0.7 Blood clots in leg or other blood vessels (Deep vein thrombosis) 2 0.7 Easy bruising 1 0.4 Congenital heart disease (Unspecified) 17 6.3
VSD 5 1.9 ASD 11 4.1 Tetrology of Fallot 0 0.0 Mitral valve prolapse 11 4.1 Eisenmenger’s Complex 0 0.0 Other Congenital heart disease 4 1.5
Congestive heart failure 0 0.0 Cyanosis 2 0.7 Pacemaker 2 0.7 History of a blood or blood product transfusion 0 0.0 Heart attack 3 1.1 Heart surgery 16 5.9 High or low blood pressure (Unspecified) 23 8.5 High blood pressure (specified) 22 8.1 Low blood pressure (specified) 1 0.4 Irregular pulse or heartbeat 0 0.0 Limits to walking/work/exercise/sports 0 0.0 Rheumatic fever 0 0.0 Other CVS Condition 0 0.0 Asthma 28 10.3 Collapsed lung 0 0.0 Smoker 4 1.5
Cigarette smoker 4 1.5 Cigar smoker 0 0.0 Marijuana smoker 1 0.4 Pipe smoker 0 0.0 Other smoking product 0 0.0
Emphysema 3 1.1 Nasal or sinus problems 2 0.7 Pneumonia 15 5.5 Pulmonary embolus/blood clot 0 0.0 Shortness of breath 5 1.9 Sleep apnea 7 2.6 Tuberculosis (TB) 0 0.0 Other Respiratory Condition 1 0.4 Cannot take aspirin 1 0.4
86
Dysphagia/Swallowing problem 26 9.6 G or J Tube 5 1.9 GERD 22 8.1 Hepatitis/jaundice 6 2.2 Hiatus hernia 1 0.4 Intestinal or bowel disorders 4 1.5 Irritable bowel syndrome 1 0.4 Liver disease 2 0.7 Recurring mouth ulcers 2 0.7 Stomach/intestinal ulcers 1 0.4 Upset stomach or diarrhea when taking medications 0 0.0 Other GI Condition 0 0.0 Allergies (unspecified) 17 6.3
Allergy to Medications 4 1.5 Environmental Allergies 0 0.0 Dietary Allergies 0 0.0 Antibiotic Allergies 15 5.5 Local anesthetic allergies 0 0.0 Other allergies 0 0.0
Cancer 5 1.9 Chromosome/Genetics Disorder 39 14.4 Crohn’s disease 0 0.0 HIV/AIDs 2 0.7 Metabolic disorders 2 0.7 Rheumatoid /Osteoarthritis/ Arthritis 10 3.7 Other Immune Condition 1 0.4 Bladder problems 2 0.7 Dialysis (Unspecified) 0 0.0
Hemodialysis (specified) 2 0.7 Peritoneal dialysis (specified) 0 0.0
Prostate problems 0 0.0 Renal problems 7 2.6 Urinary tract problems 2 0.7 Other GU Condition 0 0.0 Diabetes (Unspecified) 15 5.5 Type 1 Diabetes (insulin dependent) (2) 0 Type 2 Diabetes - Hypoglycemic medications (3) 11 4.1 Type 2 Diabetes - Diet controlled (4) 4 1.5 Hormone problems 0 0.0 Pituitary problems 0 0.0 Thyroid Problems (Unspecified) 20 7.4 Hypothyroid (2) 20 7.4
87
Hyperthyroid (3) 0 0.0 Other Endocrine Condition 0 0.0 Taking medications to increase bone density 8 3 Artificial/prosthetic joint 0 0.0 Jaw joint problems 8 3 Osteoporosis 11 4.1 Physical impairment/disability/ WC bound 81 29.9 Quadriplegia/Paraplegia or Paresis (unspecified) 0 0.0
Quadriplegia/paresis (specified) 41 15.1 Paraplegia/paresis (specified) 20 7.4
Scoliosis 23 8.5 Other MSK Condition 0 0.0 Skin lesions/disorders 0 0.0 Allergy/Hives/Rashes (unspecified) 1 0.4
Hives (specified) 0 0.0 Rashes (specified) 0 0.0
Other Dermatology Condition 0 0.0
88
Table 4. Most Common Medical Conditions Amongst Study Population
Medical Condition
Number of Patients
Identified
Percentage (/271)
Cognitive impairment 224 82.7 Developmental delay 214 79.0 Mental Retardation (MR) (Unspecified)
211 77.9
Mild MR 56 20.7 Moderate MR 75 27.7 Severe MR 80 29.5
Seizures/Epilepsy 98 36.2 Physical impairment/disability/wheelchair bound
81 29.9
Attention Deficit Disorder/ Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder/ Autism (Unspecified)
57 21.0
Autism (Specified) 53 19.6 Quadriplegia/paresis 41 15.1 Chromosome/Genetics Disorder 39 14.4 Cerebral Palsy 34 12.6 Asthma 28 10.3 Dysphagia 26 9.6 Scoliosis 23 8.5 Hypertension 22 8.1 GERD 22 8.1 Hypothyroidism 20 7.4 Paraplegia/paresis 20 7.4 Congenital heart disease (Unspecified)
17 6.3
Table 5. Number of Patients with Multiple Co-Morbidities
Medical Conditions
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten >Ten Number of Patients 4 3 25 68 48 29 27 28 16 12 11 Percentage (/271) 1.4 1.1 9.2 25.1 17.8 10.7 10.0 10.3 6.0 4.4 4.1
89
Table 6. Distribution of Medications Prescribed Amongst Study Population
Medication Number of
patients Percentage
(/271) Any Medications 235 86.7 Analgesics 8 3.0
ASA 11 4.1 Acetaminophen 18 6.6 NSAIDS 13 4.8 Narcotics/opioids 12 4.4 Other Analgesics 1 0.4
Antacids /H2 blockers 24 8.9 Antibiotics (Daily, acute infection or prophylactically) 18 6.6 Anticoagulants 9 3.3 Antihypertensives 10 3.7 Bisphosphonates 8 3.0 Intravenous bisphosphonates (2) 0 0.0 Oral bisphosphonates (3) 8 3.0 Blood Transfusions 5 1.9 Cortisone/Steroids 6 2.2 Diuretics 18 6.6 Generic cardiac medications 7 2.6 Hormone Replacement Therapy 0 0.0 Inhalers (Ventolin, etc.) 32 11.8 Laxatives 27 10.0 Muscle Relaxants 17 6.3 Psychotropic Medications 163 60.2 Seizure Medications 99 36.5 Thyroid Medications 21 7.8 Other medications 2 0.7 Type 1 Diabetes (insulin dependent) (2) 0 0.0 Type 2 Diabetes - Hypoglycemic medications (3) 11 4.1 Taking medications to increase bone density 8 3.0
90
Table 7. Most Commonly Prescribed Medications Amongst Study Population
Medication Number of Patients Percentage (/271)
Psychotropic medications 163 60.2
Anticonvulsant medications 99 36.5
Inhalers 32 11.8
Table 8. Insurance Coverage Distribution
Type of Insurance Number of Patients Percentage (/271)
No Insurance 8 3.0
Ontario Disability Support
Program (ODSP)
260 96.0
Private Insurance 5 1.0
91
Table 9. Caries Risk, Oral Hygiene and Recall Frequency Recorded at Initial New Patient Exam (MSH Dentistry Clinic)
Caries Risk, Oral Hygiene & Recall Frequency Distribution Severity
Caries Risk Low Moderate High Number of
Patients 29 66 176
Percentage (/271)
11.0 24.0 65.0
Oral
Hygiene Poor Fair Good Excellent
Number of Patients
115 129 26 1
Percentage (/271)
42.4 47.6 9.6 0.4
Recall
Frequency Every three
months (q3m)
Every six months (q6m)
Number of Patients
222 49
Percentage (/271)
82.0 18.0
92
Table 10. Frankl Scale of Patient Behaviour/Cooperation Recorded at Initial New Patient Exam (MSH Dentistry Clinic)
Frankl Scale Number of Patients Percentage (/271)
Definitely Negative (- -) 94 34.7
Negative (-) 81 29.9
Positive (+) 72 26.6
Definitely Positive (+ +) 24 8.8
93
Table 11. Number of Subjects, Teeth, and Restorations
Category All subjects SSCs only AMs only CRs only
Subjects (N) 271 271 237 60
Teeth
Total (N) 2020 731 1424 202
Per subject
Mean (SE) 7.5 (0.23) 2.7 (0.15) 6.0 (0.24) 3.4 (0.29)
Median 8.0 2.0 6.0 3.0
Min - Max 1 - 17 1 - 13 1 - 17 1 - 11
Restorations
Total (N) 2621 766 1651 204
Per subject
Mean (SE) 9.7 (0.37) 2.8 (0.16) 7.0 (0.33) 3.4 (0.30)
Median 9.0 2.0 6.0 3.0
Min - Max 1 - 37 1 - 15 1 - 26 1 - 13
Per tooth
Mean (SE) 1.3 (0.01) 1.0 (0.01) 1.2 (0.01) 1.0 (0.01)
Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Min - Max 1 - 4 1 - 3 1 - 3 1 - 2
94
Figure 5. Number of teeth restored per subject by type of restoration
Figure 6. Number of restorations per subject by restoration type
95
Figure 7. Number of restorations per tooth with majority of teeth receiving a single restoration
96
Figure 8. Number of restorations recorded by type with amalgam representing the greatest number, followed by SSCs and composite resin
97
Table 13. Number of Male Subjects, Teeth, and Restorations
Category All subjects SSCs only AMs only CRs only Subjects (N) 160 160 143 36
Teeth Total (N) 1229 435 904 117
Per subject Mean (SE) 7.7 (0.31) 2.7 (0.21) 6.3 (0.31) 3.3 (0.35) Median 8.0 2.0 6.0 2.5 Min - Max 1 - 17 1 - 13 1 - 17 1 - 8
Restorations Total (N) 1611 455 1038 117
Per subject Mean (SE) 10.1 (0.48) 2.8 (0.22) 7.3 (0.41) 3.3 (0.35) Median 10.0 2.0 6.0 2.5 Min - Max 1 - 31 1 - 15 1 - 26 1 - 8
Per tooth Mean (SE) 1.3 (0.02) 1.0 (0.01) 1.1 (0.01) 1.0 (0.00) Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Min - Max 1 - 4 1 - 2 1 - 3 1 - 1
Table 13 showing the number of male subjects, teeth, and restorations recorded within the study population
98
Table 14. Number of Female Subjects, Teeth, and Restorations
Category All subjects SSCs only AMs only CRs only
Subjects (N) 111 111 94 24
Teeth
Total (N) 791 296 520 85
Per subject
Mean (SE) 7.1 (0.35) 2.7 (0.23) 5.5 (0.38) 3.5 (0.49)
Median 7.0 2.0 5.0 3.0
Min - Max 1 - 16 1 - 13 1 - 15 1 - 11
Restorations
Total (N) 1012 311 613 87
Per subject
Mean (SE) 9.1 (0.58) 2.8 (0.24) 6.5 (0.54) 3.6 (0.55)
Median 8.0 2.0 6.0 3.0
Min - Max 1 - 37 1 - 13 1 - 26 1 - 13
Per tooth
Mean (SE) 1.3 (0.02) 1.1 (0.01) 1.2 (0.02) 1.0 (0.02)
Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Min - Max 1 - 4 1 - 3 1 - 3 1 - 2
Table 14 showing the number of female subjects, teeth, and restorations recorded within the study population
99
Table 15. Number of Restorations by Tooth Location
Tooth location
All Restorations
for All subjects
SSC
Restorations
only
AM
Restorations
only
CR Restorations
only
Upper 1297 (49.4%) 339 (44.3%) 850 (51.5%) 107 (52.5%)
Lower 1326 (50.6%) 427 (55.7%) 801 (48.5%) 97 (47.5%)
Right 1323 (50.4%) 366 (47.8%) 842 (51.0%) 114 (55.9%)
Left 1300 (49.6%) 400 (52.2%) 809 (49.0%) 90 (44.1%)
Upper right 675 (25.7%) 170 (22.2%) 442 (26.8%) 62 (30.4%)
Upper left 622 (23.7%) 169 (22.1%) 408 (24.7%) 45 (22.1%)
Lower right 648 (24.7%) 196 (25.6%) 400 (24.2%) 52 (25.5%)
Lower left 678 (25.8%) 231 (30.2%) 401 (24.3%) 45 (22.1%)
Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations for All Subjects' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type
Table 15 showing the number of restorations by tooth location and restoration type with an equal distribution
100
Figure 9. Number of restorations by tooth location – upper/lower demonstrating an equal distribution
Figure 10. Number of restorations by tooth location – left/right demonstrating an equal distribution
101
Figure 11. Number of restorations by tooth location – upper/lower and left/right demonstrating an equal distribution
102
Table 16. Number of Restorations by Specific Tooth
Tooth location
Specific tooth
All Restorations
for All subjects
SSC Restorations
only
AM Restorations
only
CR Restorations
only Upper right
14 109 (4.2%) 32 (4.2%) 67 (4.1%) 10 (4.9%)
15 146 (5.6%) 48 (6.3%) 88 (5.3%) 10 (4.9%) 16 236 (9.0%) 60 (7.8%) 148 (9.0%) 27 (13.2%) 17 171 (6.5%) 30 (3.9%) 126 (7.6%) 15 (7.4%) 18 13 (0.5%) 13 (0.8%)
Upper
left 24 107 (4.1%) 28 (3.7%) 73 (4.4%) 6 (2.9%)
25 142 (5.4%) 47 (6.1%) 86 (5.2%) 9 (4.4%) 26 215 (8.2%) 65 (8.5%) 128 (7.8%) 22 (10.8%) 27 145 (5.5%) 28 (3.7%) 110 (6.7%) 7 (3.4%) 28 13 (0.5%) 1 (0.1%) 11 (0.7%) 1 (0.5%)
Tooth location
Specific tooth
All Restorations for All subjects
SSC Restorations
only
AM Restorations
only CR Restorations
only Lower right
44 65 (2.5%) 14 (1.8%) 48 (2.9%) 3 (1.5%)
45 130 (5.0%) 27 (3.5%) 97 (5.9%) 6 (2.9%) 46 227 (8.7%) 92 (12.0%) 110 (6.7%) 25 (12.3%) 47 213 (8.1%) 63 (8.2%) 132 (8.0%) 18 (8.8%) 48 13 (0.5%) 13 (0.8%)
Lower
left 34 78 (3.0%) 24 (3.1%) 52 (3.1%) 2 (1.0%)
35 133 (5.1%) 44 (5.7%) 84 (5.1%) 5 (2.5%) 36 242 (9.2%) 102 (13.3%) 118 (7.1%) 22 (10.8%) 37 203 (7.7%) 61 (8.0%) 125 (7.6%) 16 (7.8%) 38 22 (0.8%) 22 (1.3%)
Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations for All Subjects' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type
103
Figure 12. Number of restorations by specific tooth for all restoration types. The first permanent molar is the most restored tooth.
Figure 13. Number of restorations by specific tooth for stainless steel crown restorations. The first permanent molar is the most restored tooth.
104
Figure 14. Number of restorations by specific tooth for amalgam restorations. The first and second permanent molars are the most restored teeth.
Figure 15. Number of restorations by specific tooth for composite resin restorations. The first permanent molar is the most restored tooth.
105
Table 17. Distribution of All Restorations by Tooth Location and Male Gender
Tooth location
All Restorations
for All subjects
SSC
Restorations
only
AM Restorations
only
CR Restorations
only
Upper 785 (48.7%) 194 (42.6%) 527 (50.8%) 64 (54.7%)
Lower 826 (51.3%) 261 (57.4%) 511 (49.2%) 53 (45.3%)
Right 800 (49.7%) 212 (46.6%) 525 (50.6%) 63 (53.8%)
Left 811 (50.3%) 243 (53.4%) 513 (49.4%) 54 (46.2%)
Upper right 403 (25.0%) 97 (21.3%) 270 (26.0%) 36 (30.8%)
Upper left 382 (23.7%) 97 (21.3%) 257 (24.8%) 28 (23.9%)
Lower right 397 (24.6%) 115 (25.3%) 255 (24.6%) 27 (23.1%)
Lower left 429 (26.6%) 146 (32.1%) 256 (24.7%) 26 (22.2%)
Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations for All Subjects' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type
Table 17 showing the number of restorations by tooth location and restoration type amongst male subjects with an equal distribution
106
Table 18. Distribution of All Restorations by Tooth Location and Female Gender
Tooth location
All Restorations
for All subjects
SSC
Restorations
only
AM Restorations
only
CR Restorations
only
Upper 512 (50.6%) 145 (46.6%) 323 (52.7%) 43 (49.4%)
Lower 500 (49.4%) 166 (53.4%) 290 (47.3%) 44 (50.6%)
Right 523 (51.7%) 154 (49.5%) 317 (51.7%) 51 (58.6%)
Left 489 (48.3%) 157 (50.5%) 296 (48.3%) 36 (41.4%)
Upper right 272 (26.9%) 73 (23.5%) 172 (28.1%) 26 (29.9%)
Upper left 240 (23.7%) 72 (23.2%) 151 (24.6%) 17 (19.5%)
Lower right 251 (24.8%) 81 (26.0%) 145 (23.7%) 25 (28.7%)
Lower left 249 (24.6%) 85 (27.3%) 145 (23.7%) 19 (21.8%)
Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations for All Subjects' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type
Table 18 showing the number of restorations by tooth location and restoration type amongst female subjects with an equal distribution
107
Table 19. Number of Censored Observations Including All Restoration Types
Censoring All
restorations SSC
restorations AM
restorations CR
restorations
Pre-existing
No 1664 (63.5%)
650 (84.9%) 1011 (61.2%) 3 (1.5%)
Yes 957 (36.5%) 116 (15.1%) 640 (38.8%) 201 (98.5%)
Failed* by end of study
No 1738 (66.3%)
675 (88.1%) 979 (59.3%) 84 (41.2%)
Yes 883 (33.7%) 91 (11.9%) 672 (40.7%) 120 (58.8%)
Censoring
Pre-existing restorations intact at end of study (censored)
517 (19.7%) 95 (12.4%) 340 (20.6%) 82 (40.2%)
Pre-existing restorations that failed* before end of study period (censored)
440 (16.8%) 21 (2.7%) 300 (18.2%) 119 (58.3%)
New restorations intact at end of study (censored)
1221 (46.6%)
580 (75.7%) 639 (38.7%) 2 (1.0%)
Completed longevities (uncensored)
443 (16.9%) 70 (9.1%) 372 (22.5%) 1 (0.5%)
Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type * 'Failed' indicates that the restoration was removed/replaced/ceased to exist
108
Table 20: Distribution of Diagnoses for the Placement of SSC and Amalgam Restorations
Restoration Placed
SSC Amalgam
Diagnosis Number Percentage
(/650)
Number Percentage
(/1011)
Caries 559 86.0 997 98.6
Pre-existing restoration (Inadequate)
2 0.3 0 0
Pre-existing SSC (Inadequate)
3 0.5 0 0
Loose/Lost SSC 22 3.4 0 0
SSC Perforation 12 1.8 0 0
Tooth Fracture 40 6.2 8 0.8
Restoration
Fracture
12 1.8 6 0.6
Loose/Lost Restoration
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pulpal Pathology/Necrosis
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Periodontal disease
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
109
Figure 16. Number of failures recorded by the end of study from all restoration types (combined pre-existing and new restorations)
110
Table 23. Distribution of SSC Occlusal Perforations
Diagnosis
Replaced with New
SSC
Repaired Occlusal
Perforation of SSC
with AM
Total
(/766)
Number Percent
SSC Perforation 12 17* 29 3.8
Note: *The 17 SSCs that were repaired with occlusal amalgam restorations were not considered conventional amalgam restorations nor a failure of the SSCs, as the crown remained intact with sealed margins, in the absence of recurrent decay or pathology.
111
Table 24. Diagnoses for Specific Amalgam Restoration Failures Replaced with a New Restoration
Diagnosis
New Replacement Restoration
AM
(Same Extent)
AM
(Greater Extent)
SSC
Total
Number Percentage
(/434)
Caries 47 120 217 384 88.5
Tooth Fracture 1 4 24 29 6.7
Restoration Fracture
1 2 15 18 4.1
Pre-existing Restoration (Inadequate)
0 0 2 2 0.5
Pre-existing SSC (Inadequate)
0 0 1 1 0.2
Total 49 126 259 434 100
112
Table 27. Diagnoses for Composite Resin Restoration Failures Replaced with New Restorations
Diagnosis
Replacement Restoration
CR
(Same Extent)
AM
SSC
Total
Number Percentage
(/94)
Caries 1 34 54 89 94.7
Loose/Lost Restoration
1 0 0 1 1.1
Tooth Fracture 0 1 3 4 4.3
Restoration Fracture
0 0 0 0 0.0
Pre-existing restoration (Inadequate)
0 0 0 0 0.0
Pre-existing SSC (Inadequate)
0 0 0 0 0.0
Pulpal pathology/ Necrosis
0 0 0 0 0.0
Periodontal disease
0 0 0 0 0.0
Total 2 35 57 94 100.0
113
Table 28. Number and Distribution of All New Restorations
Censoring All restorations SSC
restorations AM
restorations CR
restorations
Pre-existing
No 1664 (100.0%) 650 (100.0%) 1011 (100.0%) 3 (100.0%)
Failed* by end of study
No 1221 (73.4%) 580 (89.2%) 639 (63.2%) 2 (66.7%)
Yes 443 (26.6%) 70 (10.8%) 372 (36.8%) 1 (33.3%)
Censoring
New restorations intact at end of study (censored)
1221 (73.4%) 580 (89.2%) 639 (63.2%) 2 (66.7%)
Completed longevities (uncensored)
443 (26.6%) 70 (10.8%) 372 (36.8%) 1 (33.3%)
Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type * 'Failed' indicates that the restoration was removed/replaced/ceased to exist
114
Figure 17. Non-censored number and distribution of new restoration failures.
115
Table 29. Distribution and Number of All Pre-existing Restorations
Censoring All restorations SSC
restorations AM
restorations CR
restorations
Pre-existing
Yes 957 (100.0%) 116 (100.0%) 640 (100.0%) 201 (100.0%)
Failed* by end of study
No 517 (54.0%) 95 (81.9%) 340 (53.1%) 82 (40.8%)
Yes 440 (46.0%) 21 (18.1%) 300 (46.9%) 119 (59.2%)
Censoring
Pre-existing restorations intact at end of study (censored)
517 (54.0%) 95 (81.9%) 340 (53.1%) 82 (40.8%)
Pre-existing restorations that failed* before end of study period (uncensored)
440 (46.0%) 21 (18.1%) 300 (46.9%) 119 (59.2%)
Notes: 1. The denominator for the 'All Restorations' column is the total number of restorations of any type 2. The denominator for other columns is the total number of restorations of that type * 'Failed' indicates that the restoration was removed/replaced/ceased to exist
116
Figure 18. Number of failures by end of study for all pre-existing restorations
117
Table 31. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for All Stainless Steel Crown Restorations
Product-limit estimate of longevity Estimate (SE*) 95% CI**
# With complete info on longevity
# With incomplete info
on longevity
Yearly estimates (percent incomplete)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 766
1 year(s) 98.7% (0.6%) (98.7%, 98.7%) 9 668
2 year(s) 97.6% (1.1%) (97.6%, 97.7%) 16 584
3 year(s) 97.1% (1.2%) (97.0%, 97.1%) 19 507
4 year(s) 95.2% (2.0%) (95.0%, 95.4%) 28 430
5 year(s) 93.8% (2.7%) (93.4%, 94.1%) 34 384
6 year(s) 91.2% (7.1%) (89.9%, 92.3%) 44 313
8 year(s) 89.4% (7.7%) (87.8%, 90.8%) 49 225
10 year(s) 82.6% (11.5%) (78.8%, 85.9%) 64 153
12 year(s) 79.6% (14.1%) (74.0%, 84.1%) 69 90
14 year(s) 78.7% (15.1%) (72.5%, 83.7%) 70 51 Note: * Williams estimate of standard error ** Based on Williams estimate of standard error
118
Figure 19. Survival curve and 95% CI for all stainless steel crown restorations (combined pre-existing and new)
119
Table 32. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for New Stainless Steel Crown Restorations
Product-limit estimate of longevity Estimate (SE*) 95% CI** # Failed # Intact
Yearly estimates (percent intact)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 650
1 year(s) 98.5% (0.7%) (98.5%, 98.5%) 9 564
2 year(s) 97.2% (1.3%) (97.1%, 97.3%) 16 495
3 year(s) 96.5% (1.5%) (96.4%, 96.6%) 19 429
4 year(s) 94.4% (2.5%) (94.1%, 94.6%) 28 366
5 year(s) 92.7% (3.4%) (92.2%, 93.2%) 34 326
6 year(s) 89.7% (8.5%) (87.9%, 91.2%) 44 261
8 year(s) 87.5% (9.4%) (85.2%, 89.5%) 49 181
10 year(s) 79.2% (15.4%) (73.0%, 84.2%) 64 119
12 year(s) 75.4% (19.8%) (66.0%, 82.5%) 69 62
14 year(s) 74.2% (21.7%) (63.3%, 82.2%) 70 31 Note: * Williams estimate of standard error ** Based on Williams estimate of standard error
120
Figure 20. Survival curve and 95% CI for new stainless steel crown restorations (that were placed at MSH)
121
Table 33. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for Pre-existing Stainless Steel Crown Restorations
Product-limit estimate of longevity Estimate (SE*) 95% CI** # Failed # Intact
Yearly estimates (percent intact)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 116
1 year(s) 96.4% (4.3%) (96.1%, 96.7%) 4 104
2 year(s) 96.4% (4.3%) (96.1%, 96.7%) 4 89
3 year(s) 96.4% (4.3%) (96.1%, 96.7%) 4 78
4 year(s) 96.4% (4.3%) (96.1%, 96.7%) 4 64
5 year(s) 94.9% (4.5%) (94.4%, 95.3%) 5 58
6 year(s) 93.2% (4.6%) (92.6%, 93.8%) 6 52
8 year(s) 91.4% (5.0%) (90.6%, 92.2%) 7 44
10 year(s) 87.0% (6.3%) (85.4%, 88.4%) 9 34
12 year(s) 79.1% (13.1%) (73.9%, 83.5%) 12 28
14 year(s) 73.4% (19.2%) (63.7%, 80.9%) 14 20
16 year(s) 65.8% (13.7%) (57.9%, 72.7%) 16 16
18 year(s) 61.1% (12.8%) (53.2%, 68.2%) 17 12 Note: * Williams estimate of standard error ** Based on Williams estimate of standard error
122
Figure 21. Survival curve and 95% CI for pre-existing stainless steel crown restorations (present at time of new patient exam at MSH)
123
Table 34. Follow-up by Subject and by Restoration Type for All Restorations
Follow-up (years)
Category All subjects SSCs only AMs only CRs only
Subject
N 271
Mean (SE) 11.87 (0.518)
Median (IQR) 10.10 (5.21 - 16.05)
Min - Max 0.20 - 38.94
Restoration
N 2621 766 1651 204
Mean (SE) 7.97 (0.088) 6.11 (0.110) 9.27 (0.121) 4.43 (0.142)
Median (IQR) 5.61 (2.38 - 11.28) 5.09 (2.03 - 8.93) 6.90 (2.95 - 13.42)
2.31 (0.72 - 5.69)
Min - Max 0.00 - 38.94 0.00 - 33.10 0.00 - 38.94 0.01 - 27.26
Follow-up=0 years N (%)
46 (1.8%) 27 (3.5%) 19 (1.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Follow-up>0 years N (%)
2575 (98.2%) 739 (96.5%) 1632 (98.8%) 204 (100.0%)
Restorations with Follow-up Time>0
N 2575 739 1632 204
Mean (SE) 8.11 (0.089) 6.34 (0.106) 9.38 (0.122) 4.43 (0.142)
Median (IQR) 5.71 (2.51 - 11.40) 5.23 (2.31 - 9.13) 7.05 (3.05 - 13.62)
2.31 (0.72 - 5.69)
Min - Max 0.01 - 38.94 0.05 - 33.10 0.02 - 38.94 0.01 - 27.26
124
Figure 22. Follow-up time in 5-year increments by subject. Zero follow up is for patients where the date of their treatment coincided with their most recent appointment at MSH.
125
Figure 23. Follow-up time in 5-year increments by restoration type for all restorations. Zero follow up is for patients where the date of their treatment coincided with their most recent appointment at MSH.
126
Table 35. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for All Amalgam Restorations
Product-limit estimate of longevity Estimate (SE*) 95% CI**
# With complete info on longevity
# With incomplete
info on longevity
Yearly estimates (percent
incomplete)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 1651
1 year(s) 98.6% (0.7%) (98.6%, 98.6%) 22 1497
2 year(s) 95.9% (3.7%) (95.6%, 96.2%) 62 1373
3 year(s) 92.6% (4.2%) (92.0%, 93.2%) 107 1231
4 year(s) 90.0% (4.7%) (89.0%, 90.8%) 141 1122
5 year(s) 87.2% (5.3%) (85.9%, 88.4%) 174 1000
6 year(s) 84.8% (10.3%) (81.7%, 87.4%) 201 886
8 year(s) 81.1% (10.7%) (77.2%, 84.4%) 238 748
10 year(s) 76.9% (11.4%) (72.0%, 81.1%) 274 605
12 year(s) 72.5% (12.9%) (66.1%, 78.0%) 305 465
14 year(s) 70.7% (13.7%) (63.5%, 76.7%) 316 393
16 year(s) 66.8% (16.0%) (57.6%, 74.5%) 336 325
18 year(s) 64.7% (17.3%) (54.3%, 73.3%) 345 229
20 year(s) 62.0% (19.4%) (49.7%, 72.1%) 354 200
25 year(s) 54.9% (23.7%) (38.5%, 68.7%) 368 90
30 year(s) 53.5% (25.2%) (35.9%, 68.3%) 370 49 Note: * Williams estimate of standard error ** Based on Williams estimate of standard error
127
Figure 24. Survival curve and 95% CI for all amalgam restorations (combined pre-existing and new)
128
Table 36. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for New Amalgam Restorations Product-limit
estimate of longevity Estimate (SE*) 95% CI** # Failed # Intact
Yearly estimates (percent intact)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 1011
1 year(s) 97.7% (1.1%) (97.7%, 97.8%) 22 931
2 year(s) 93.4% (5.7%) (92.7%, 94.1%) 62 839
3 year(s) 88.2% (6.3%) (86.8%, 89.5%) 107 733
4 year(s) 84.0% (6.9%) (81.9%, 85.8%) 141 652
5 year(s) 79.6% (7.6%) (76.7%, 82.2%) 174 578
6 year(s) 75.8% (13.6%) (69.6%, 80.8%) 201 501
8 year(s) 70.0% (13.4%) (62.9%, 76.0%) 238 419
10 year(s) 63.5% (13.1%) (55.7%, 70.4%) 274 314
12 year(s) 56.5% (13.4%) (47.6%, 64.5%) 305 223
14 year(s) 53.4% (13.9%) (43.9%, 62.0%) 316 176
16 year(s) 47.0% (15.7%) (35.8%, 57.4%) 336 140
18 year(s) 43.6% (16.9%) (31.5%, 55.1%) 345 95
20 year(s) 39.1% (20.4%) (24.6%, 53.3%) 354 73
25 year(s) 28.9% (30.7%) (10.4%, 50.7%) 368 33
30 year(s) 27.1% (33.7%) (8.0%, 51.0%) 370 16 Note: * Williams estimate of standard error ** Based on Williams estimate of standard error
129
Figure 25. Survival curve and 95% CI for new amalgam restorations (that were placed at MSH)
130
Table 37. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for Pre-existing Amalgam Restorations
Product-limit estimate of longevity Estimate (SE*) 95% CI** # Failed # Intact
Yearly estimates (percent intact)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 640
1 year(s) 88.6% (10.0%) (86.3%, 90.5%) 73 566
2 year(s) 85.6% (11.3%) (82.4%, 88.3%) 98 535
3 year(s) 81.0% (13.2%) (76.1%, 85.0%) 122 499
4 year(s) 78.5% (14.0%) (72.8%, 83.2%) 136 470
5 year(s) 74.2% (15.9%) (66.5%, 80.4%) 161 422
6 year(s) 71.1% (17.4%) (61.9%, 78.5%) 178 385
8 year(s) 67.2% (19.6%) (55.7%, 76.3%) 198 329
10 year(s) 63.6% (21.6%) (50.1%, 74.3%) 215 291
12 year(s) 59.4% (24.7%) (43.0%, 72.6%) 233 242
14 year(s) 57.4% (26.3%) (39.5%, 71.8%) 241 217
16 year(s) 54.4% (29.3%) (33.9%, 71.0%) 253 186
18 year(s) 50.6% (29.6%) (29.6%, 68.2%) 264 134
20 year(s) 48.7% (31.3%) (26.5%, 67.7%) 269 127
25 year(s) 41.1% (35.5%) (16.8%, 64.2%) 285 57
30 year(s) 37.1% (39.9%) (11.4%, 63.5%) 291 34 Note: * Williams estimate of standard error ** Based on Williams estimate of standard error
131
Figure 26. Survival curve and 95% CI for pre-existing amalgam (present at time of new patient exam at MSH)
132
Table 38. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity for Pre-existing Composite Resin Restorations
Product-limit estimate of longevity Estimate (SE*) 95% CI** # Failed # Intact
Yearly estimates (percent incomplete)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 201
1 year(s) 67.9% (32.1%) (48.3%, 81.3%) 67 128
2 year(s) 58.4% (30.9%) (37.4%, 74.6%) 83 109
3 year(s) 52.5% (30.8%) (30.8%, 70.3%) 93 87
4 year(s) 46.9% (30.8%) (25.0%, 66.1%) 102 68
5 year(s) 44.6% (30.9%) (22.8%, 64.4%) 105 56
6 year(s) 42.2% (31.7%) (20.0%, 62.9%) 108 42
8 year(s) 38.1% (33.4%) (15.6%, 60.5%) 112 36
10 year(s) 37.0% (34.3%) (14.3%, 60.2%) 113 34
12 year(s) 33.7% (35.8%) (11.1%, 58.3%) 116 25
14 year(s) 33.7% (35.8%) (11.1%, 58.3%) 116 13
16 year(s) 31.1% (39.9%) (7.8%, 58.6%) 117 12
18 year(s) 31.1% (39.9%) (7.8%, 58.6%) 117 4
20 year(s) 31.1% (39.9%) (7.8%, 58.6%) 117 4
25 year(s) 23.3% (33.8%) (5.9%, 47.2%) 118 3
30 year(s) 15.5% (23.2%) (5.3%, 30.7%) 119 0 Note: * Williams estimate of standard error ** Based on Williams estimate of standard error
133
Figure 27. Survival curve and 95% CI for pre-existing composite resin restorations (present at time of new patient exam at MSH)
134
Figure 28. Survival curve comparison between all amalgam and SSC restorations demonstrating the superiority of the SSC restoration
135
Table 39. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New Stainless Steel Crown Restorations by Age Group
136
Figure 31. Survival of new stainless steel crown restorations by different age groups at time of placement
137
Table 40: Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New Amalgam Restorations by Age Group
138
Figure 32. Survival of new amalgam restorations by different age groups at time of placement demonstrating a negligible difference
139
Table 41. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New SSC Restorations by Gender
Male Female
Year PL
Estimate Failed Intact PL
Estimate Failed Intact
Yearly estimates (percent intact)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 402 100.0% 0 248
1 year(s) 99.2% 3 347 97.4% 6 217
2 year(s) 98.3% 6 305 95.4% 10 190
3 year(s) 97.9% 7 268 94.3% 12 161
4 year(s) 96.4% 11 234 91.1% 17 132
5 year(s) 94.6% 15 204 89.7% 19 122
6 year(s) 91.7% 21 157 86.6% 23 104
8 year(s) 90.3% 23 124 83.2% 26 57
10 year(s) 80.3% 35 77 78.2% 29 42
140
Figure 33. Survival of new SSC restorations by gender demonstrating a negligible difference
141
Table 42. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New Amalgam Restorations by Gender
Male Female
Year PL Estimate Failed Intact PL Estimate Failed Intact
Yearly estimates (percent intact)
0 year(s) 100.0% 0 643 100.0% 0 368
1 year(s) 98.4% 10 595 96.6% 12 336
2 year(s) 93.3% 40 524 93.7% 22 315
3 year(s) 86.7% 76 456 90.8% 31 277
4 year(s) 83.1% 94 409 85.3% 47 243
5 year(s) 78.3% 117 365 81.7% 57 213
6 year(s) 73.9% 137 306 79.0% 64 195
8 year(s) 68.2% 160 255 73.1% 78 164
10 year(s) 62.7% 179 192 65.0% 95 122
142
Figure 34. Survival of new amalgam restorations by gender demonstrating a negligible difference
143
Table 43. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New SSC Restorations by Location (Upper vs. Lower)
144
Figure 35. Survival of new SSC restorations by location (upper vs. lower) of placement demonstrating a negligible difference
145
Table 44. Product-Limit Estimate of Longevity of New Amalgam Restorations by Location (Upper vs. Lower)
146
Figure 36. Survival of new amalgam restorations by location (upper vs. lower) of placement demonstrating a negligible difference
147
Table 45. Crude Success Rates for New SSC and Amalgam Restorations
Category SSC AM
Number of restorations 650 1011
Number of failed restorations 70 372
Number of intact restorations 580 639
Crude success rate (SE*) 89.2% (1.00%) 63.2% (1.35%)
Note: *takes into account correlations
Figure 37. Crude success rates for new SSC and amalgam restorations
148
Table 47. Duration Between Pre and Post SSC Periapical Radiographs
Statistic
Category N Mean SE Median Min Max
Accounting for
Correlations
59 8.41 0.39 8.30 0.96 29.05
149
APPENDIX 1: DEMOGRAPHICS
A) Screenshots of Database for Appendix 1 Data Collection
150
B) Patient Demographics
1. MRN/MSID: 9 digits
2. DOB: (YYYY-MM-DD)
3. Gender: (Male or Female)
4. Date of Most Recent Visit: (YYYY-MM-DD)
5. Date of Initial Visit to MSH: (YYYY-MM-DD)
6. Referred by:
Family DDS = 1
Family MD/ Institution MD = 2
Primary Caregiver = 3
Social services/ health unit = 4
Other = 5
7. Type of Residence:
On own (alone) = 1
On own with attendant care (24/7) = 2
Family/Foster Home = 3
Group Home = 4
Institution/Chronic Care Facility = 5
Other = 6
Unknown = 7
C) Family History
1. Heart Problems: No = 0; Yes = 1
2. Bleeding Problems: No = 0; Yes = 1
151
3. Diabetes: No = 0; Yes = 1
4. Hypertension: No = 0; Yes = 1
5. Malignant Hyperthermia (MH): No = 0; Yes = 1
6. Cancer: No = 0; Yes = 1
7. Developmental Disability: No = 0; Yes = 1
8. Other: (State)
D) Medical Information
i) Central Nervous System
1. ADD/ADHD/Autism (unspecified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
2. ADD (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. ADHD (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
4. Autism (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
5. Alzheimer’s Disease/Dementia (No = 0, Yes = 1)
6. Cerebral Palsy (No = 0, Yes = 1)
7. Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA/Stroke) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
8. Craniofacial Anomaly (No = 0, Yes = 1)
9. Cognitive impairment (ex. Memory/concentration) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
10. Developmental Delay (No = 0, Yes = 1)
11. Down’s Syndrome (No = 0, Yes = 1)
12. Facial pain disorders (No = 0, Yes = 1)
13. Fainting spells (No = 0, Yes = 1)
14. Hearing disorder (No = 0, Yes = 1)
15. Malignant hyperthermia (No = 0, Yes = 1)
- Number of Malignant Hyperthermia Attacks (enter value)
152
16. Mental Retardation (No =0, Yes but Unspecified=1)
(If Classified: Mild=2, Moderate=3, Severe/profound=4)
17. Migraine or Recurring headaches (No = 0, Yes = 1)
18. Multiple Sclerosis (No = 0, Yes = 1)
19. Muscular Dystrophy (No = 0, Yes = 1)
20. Parkinson’s disease (No = 0, Yes = 1)
21. Psychiatric disorder (No = 0, Yes = 1)
22. Seizures/Epilepsy (No = 0, Yes = 1)
23. Sight disorder (not correctable with glasses) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
24. Sleep problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
25. Spina Bifida (No = 0, Yes = 1)
26. Traumatic/Acquired Head or Brain injury (No =0, Yes =1)
- Has Shunt (No = 0, Yes=1)
27. Other: (Enter words)
ii) Cardiovascular System
1. Anemia (No = 0, Yes = 1)
2. Angina/chest pains (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. Artificial/prosthetic heart value or artery/vein (No = 0, Yes = 1)
4. Bleeding or clotting disorder (No = 0, Yes but Unspecified= 1)
- If Specified:
(Hemophilia = 2, Sickle Cell Anemia = 3, Thalassemia = 4, Other = 5)
5. Prolonged bleeding (ex. After cut or extraction) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
6. Blood clots in legs or other blood vessels (Deep vein thrombosis) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
7. Easy bruising (No = 0, Yes = 1)
153
8. Congenital heart disease (Unspecified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
- If specified: (select all that apply)
VSD = (No = 0, Yes = 1)
ASD = (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Tetrology of Fallot = (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Mitral valve prolapse = (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Eisenmenger’s Complex = (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Other = (No = 0, Yes = 1)
9. Congestive heart failure (No = 0, Yes = 1)
10. Cyanosis (No = 0, Yes = 1)
11. Pacemaker (No = 0, Yes = 1)
12. History of a blood or blood product transfusion (No = 0, Yes = 1)
13. Heart attack (No = 0, Yes = 1)
14. Heart surgery (No = 0, Yes = 1)
15. High or low blood pressure (Unspecified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
16. High blood pressure (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
17. Low blood pressure (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
18. Irregular pulse or heartbeat (No = 0, Yes = 1)
19. Limits to walking/work/exercise/sports (No = 0, Yes = 1)
20. Rheumatic fever (known history of disease) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
21. Other: (Enter words)
iii) Respiratory System
1. Asthma (No = 0, Yes = 1)
2. Collapsed lung (No = 0, Yes = 1)
154
3. Smoker (No = 0, Yes = 1)
a) What do you smoke: (Select all that apply)
i. Cigarettes = No = 0; Yes = 1
ii. Cigars = No = 0; Yes = 1
iii. Marijuana = No = 0; Yes = 1
iv. Pipes = No = 0; Yes = 1
v. Other = No = 0; Yes = 1
b) How much do you smoke (packs/day) (Enter value from 1-100)
c) For how long have you smoked (pack years) (Enter value from 1-100)
4. Emphysema (No = 0, Yes = 1)
5. Nasal or sinus problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
6. Pneumonia (No = 0, Yes = 1)
7. Pulmonary embolus/blood clot (No = 0, Yes = 1)
8. Shortness of breath (No = 0, Yes = 1)
9. Sleep apnea (No = 0, Yes = 1)
10. Tuberculosis (TB) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
11. Other: (Enter words)
iv) Gastrointestinal System
1. Cannot take aspirin (No = 0, Yes = 1)
2. Dysphagia/Swallowing problem (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. G or J Tube (No = 0, Yes = 1)
4. GERD (No = 0, Yes = 1)
5. Hepatitis/jaundice (No = 0, Yes = 1)
6. Hiatus hernia (No = 0, Yes = 1)
155
7. Intestinal or bowel disorders (No = 0, Yes = 1)
8. Irritable bowel syndrome (No = 0, Yes = 1)
9. Liver disease (No = 0, Yes = 1)
10. Recurring mouth ulcers (No = 0, Yes = 1)
11. Stomach/intestinal ulcers (No = 0, Yes = 1)
12. Upset stomach or diarrhea when taking medications (No = 0, Yes = 1)
13. Other: (Enter words)
v) Immune System
1. Allergies (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Medications (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Environmental Allergies (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Dietary Allergies (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Antibiotic Allergies (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Local anesthetic allergies (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Other allergies (Enter words)
2. Cancer (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. Chromosome/Genetics Disorder (No = 0, Yes = 1)
4. Crohn’s disease (No = 0, Yes = 1)
5. HIV/AIDs (No = 0, Yes = 1)
6. Metabolic disorders (No = 0, Yes = 1)
7. Rheumatoid /Osteoarthritis/ Arthritis (No = 0, Yes = 1)
8. Other (Enter words)
156
vi) Genito-Urinary System
1. Bladder problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
2. Dialysis (No = 0, Yes but Unspecified = 1)
Hemodialysis (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Peritoneal (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. Prostate problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
4. Renal problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
5. Urinary tract problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
6. Other (Enter words)
vii) Endocrine System
1. Diabetes (No =0, Yes but Unspecified=1, Type 1 (insulin dependent)=2, Hypoglycemic medications = 3, Diet controlled =4)
- Number of diabetic hospitalizations: (Enter value)
2. Hormone problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. Pituitary problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
4. Thyroid problems (No = 0, Yes but Unspecified = 1, Hypothyroid = 2, Hyperthyroid = 3)
5. Other: (Enter words)
viii) Musculoskeletal System
1. Taking medications to increase bone density (No = 0, Yes = 1)
2. Artificial/prosthetic joint (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. Jaw joint problems (No = 0, Yes = 1)
4. Osteoporosis (No = 0, Yes = 1)
5. Physical impairment/Disability/ Wheelchair bound (No = 0, Yes = 1)
157
6. Quadriplegia/Paraplegia or Paresis (unspecified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Quadriplegia/paresis (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Paraplegia/paresis (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
7. Scoliosis (No = 0, Yes = 1)
8. Other: (Enter words)
ix) Dermatology
1. Skin lesions/disorders (No = 0, Yes = 1)
2. Allergy/Hives/Rashes (unspecified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Hives (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
Rashes (specified) (No = 0, Yes = 1)
3. Other (Enter words)
E) Medications at the Present Time *Date of data entry
1. Any Medications: No = 0; Yes = 1
2. Analgesics: (No = 0; Yes = 1) (Select all that apply)
ASA = No = 0; Yes = 1
Acetaminophen = No = 0; Yes = 1
NSAIDS = No = 0; Yes = 1
Narcotics/opioids = No = 0; Yes = 1
Other = No = 0; Yes = 1
3. Antacids /H2 blockers: No = 0; Yes = 1
4. Antibiotics (Daily, acute infection or prophylactically): No = 0; Yes = 1
5. Anticoagulants: No = 0; Yes = 1
6. Antihypertensives: No = 0; Yes = 1
158
7. Bisphosphonates: (No = 0, Yes = 1)
- If route provided: (Intravenous = 2, Oral = 3)
8. Blood Transfusions: No = 0; Yes = 1
9. Cortisone/Steroids: No = 0; Yes = 1
10. Diuretics: No = 0; Yes = 1
11. Generic cardiac medications: No = 0; Yes = 1
12. Hormone Replacement Therapy: No = 0; Yes = 1
13. Inhalers (Ventolin, etc.): No = 0; Yes = 1
14. Laxatives: No = 0; Yes = 1
15. Muscle Relaxants: No = 0; Yes = 1
16. Psychotropic Medications: No = 0; Yes = 1
17. Seizure Medications: No = 0; Yes = 1
18. Thyroid Medications: No = 0; Yes = 1
19. Other: (Enter words) F) Previous Surgical Experience
1. Total number of dental general anesthetics: (enter numerical value)
2. Teeth present as recorded during Dental General Anaesthetic Treatments (from Odontogram) for respective treatment dates
G) Dental Information
1. Dental coverage: (Select all that apply)
No Insurance = No = 0; Yes = 1
ODSP = No = 0; Yes = 1
Community/Social Services/Ontario Works = No = 0; Yes = 1
159
Private Insurance = No = 0; Yes = 1
New Refugee Status = No = 0; Yes = 1
Welfare = No = 0; Yes = 1
Reserve/Native Status = No = 0; Yes = 1
Other = No = 0; Yes = 1
2. From Initial New Patient Exam (Intraoral findings)
a) Occlusion:
Not stated/unknown = 0
Class 1 Molar = 1
Class 2 Molar = 2
Class 3 Molar = 3
b) Overbite (%): (Fill in value or leave blank if not noted)
c) Anterior open bite: (No = 0; Yes = 1)
d) Overjet (mm): (Fill in numerical value or leave blank if not noted)
e) Parafunction/Bruxism: (No = 0; Yes = 1)
f) Other significant findings: (Fill in text box)
3. Caries Risk at Initial Exam:
Low = 1
Moderate = 2
High = 3
4. Oral Hygiene Status at Initial Exam:
Poor (severe generalized plaque accumulation) = 0
160
Fair (moderate generalized plaque accumulation) = 1
Good (minimal generalized plaque accumulation) = 2
Excellent = 3
5. Number of teeth present at initial new patient exam: (Fill in numerical value)
6. Outpatient Clinic Restorative treatment currently performed by: (Select all that apply)
Staff: No = 0; Yes = 1
Post-graduate student: No = 0; Yes = 1
Residents/interns: No = 0; Yes = 1
Undergraduate Dental Students: No = 0; Yes = 1
7. Outpatient Hygiene/Cleanings currently performed by: (Select all that apply)
Staff: No = 0; Yes = 1
Post-graduate student: No = 0; Yes = 1
Residents/interns: No = 0; Yes = 1
Undergraduate Dental Students/ D-Clinic: No = 0; Yes = 1
Hygienist: No = 0; Yes = 1
8. Inpatient GA treatments performed by: (2 options)
i. Staff, Resident/intern, and Post-graduate student: No = 0; Yes = 1
ii. Staff and Resident/intern: No = 0; Yes = 1
9. Outpatient GA treatments performed by: (2 options)
i. Staff, Resident/intern and Post-graduate student: No = 0; Yes = 1
161
ii. Staff and Resident/intern: No = 0; Yes = 1
10. All treatment conducted at MSH for Patient: (select all that apply)
i) Examination: No = 0; Yes = 1
ii) Radiographs: No = 0; Yes = 1
iii) Preventive: No = 0; Yes = 1
iv) Restorative: No = 0; Yes = 1
v) Endodontics: No = 0; Yes = 1
vi) Surgical: No = 0; Yes = 1
vii) Prosthetic: No = 0; Yes = 1
viii) Adjunctive periodontal therapy: No = 0; Yes = 1
ix) Other: No = 0; Yes = 1
11. Frankl Scale of Behaviour/Cooperation (Recorded at Initial new patient exam)
i) Definitely Negative (-- or greater) (Refusal of treatment/extreme negativism/violent) = 1
ii) Negative (-)(Reluctance to accept treatment, uncooperative) = 2
iii) Positive (+)(Acceptance of tx, cautious, needs help) = 3
iv) Definitely Positive (++ or greater) (Good cooperation, with ease) = 4
12. Recall Program (Most recent that is recorded)
Not stated = 0
3 months = 1
6 months = 2
12 months = 3
162
APPENDIX 2: DENTAL TREATMENT DATABASE A) Screenshots of Database for Appendix 2 Data Collection
163
B) Dental Treatment Data Collection
1) Tooth Number *Must fill in either field 2 or 3 for every data entry
2) Pre-existing Restoration or SSC:
Date of Initial new patient exam (YYYY/MM/DD) OR
For final assessment of SSC or Restoration: Date of most recent recall/dental examination
(YYYY/MM/DD)
3) Date of Dental Treatment (new) conducted: (YYYY/MM/DD)
4) Dental Diagnosis:
Caries: 1
Pre-existing Restoration: 2
Pre-existing SSC: 3
Loose/Lost Restoration: 4
Loose/Lost SSC: 5
SSC Perforation: 6
Tooth Fracture: 7
Restoration Fracture: 8
Pulpal Pathology/Necrosis: 9
Other: +
4) Surfaces Restored (Available for All Dental Treatments)
Not Applicable/Unknown = A
Buccal (B) = B
164
Lingual (L) = C
Occlusal (O) = D
Occlusal-Lingual (OL) = E
Occlusal -Buccal (OB) = F
Mesial-Occlusal (MO) = G
Disto-Occlusal (DO)= H
Mesial-Occlusal- Distal (MOD) = I
Mesial-Occlusal- Buccal (MOB) = J
Mesial- Occlusal – Lingual (MOL) = K
Mesial- Occlusal – Lingual – Buccal (MOLB) = L
Disto- Occlusal- Buccal (DOB) = M
Disto- Occlusal- Lingual (DOL) = N
Disto-Occlusal –Lingual – Buccal (DOLB) = O
Mesial-Occlusal-Distal-Lingual (MODL) = P
Mesial- Occlusal- Distal- Buccal (MODB) = Q
Mesial- Occlusal – Distal- Buccal – Lingual (MODBL) = R
Recurrent = S
5) Type of Dental Treatment
No treatment needed = 0
Composite resin restoration (CR) = 1
Amalgam restoration (AM) = 2
Stainless steel crown (SSC) = 3
Glass ionomer filling (GIC) = 4
Extraction = 5
165
6) How treatment was conducted:
Not Applicable = 0
No Local anesthetic (LA), N2O or Sedation = 1
Local anesthetic only (LA) = 2
Local anesthetic and Nitrous oxide (N2O) = 3
Local anesthetic and oral sedation = 4
General anesthetic (GA) = 5
Unknown/Other = 6
7) Status of Pre-existing Restoration
Unknown (Pre-existing) = 0
Intact/ Within Normal Limits = 1
Non-restored (virgin) tooth = 2
New/Original (different site of tooth) = 3
Defect (Monitored and No treatment required) = 4
Repair (defect requires repair within restoration) = 5
Recementation of SSC = 6
Replacement of restoration (EXACT same material and extent*also classified as Failure) = 7
Failure (GREATER extent, different material, new SSC, RCT or Extraction)= 8
8) Final assessment (most recent recall, etc.) of Restoration
Not Applicable = 0
No treatment required = 1
166
Treatment required = 2
Left blank = d
167
APPENDIX 3: RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT DATABASE A) Screenshots of Database for Appendix 3 Data Collection
168
B) Radiographic Assessment Data Collection
a) Date of Dental Treatment: (YYYY-MM- DD)
b) Pre or Post SSC:
Pre = 0
Post = 1
c) Tooth with SSC: (Select tooth number)
d) Type of Radiograph:
Bitewing = 1
Periapical = 2
e) From bitewing radiographs: Alveolar Bone Measurement
i) Measurement recorded of alveolar bone status (Distal to SSC)
a) Site distal to SSC: (fill in numerical value to 2nd decimal point)
b) Normal or Non-Resorbed (<2mm)= 0
Resorbed (>2mm) = 1
Not Applicable = 2
ii) Measurement recorded of alveolar bone status (Mesial to SSC)
a) Site mesial to SSC: (fill in numerical value to 2nd decimal point)
b) Normal or Non-Resorbed (<2mm)= 0
Resorbed (>2mm) = 1
Not Applicable = 2
e) Subsample Study: Periapical index score (PAI) (1-5)
- Periapical radiograph and PAI assessment of tooth prior to SSC restoration
169
- PAI assessment of tooth at a time point following SSC restoration
0 = Cannot be determined (No PA film or view available)
1 = Normal periapical structure (healthy)
2 = Small changes in bone structure (mild inflammation/PDL widening)
3 = Changes in bone structure with some mineral loss
4 = Periodontitis with well-defined radiolucent area
5 = Severe periodontitis with exacerbating features
6 = Not Applicable
170
APPENDIX 4: PERIAPICAL INDEX REFERENCE
Reference Radiographs/Line Drawings with Periapical Index (PAI) Scores
(Trope, 1999: Reproduced with permission from the Swedish Dental Journal, 1967)
Fig./. Reference radiographs, corresponding l ine drawings and their associated scores. (Orstavik, 1986)
171
APPENDIX 5: PILOT STUDY AGREEMENT ANALYSIS
Pilot 1: 10 Patient Charts
(Items compared: DOB, residence, date of Npe, referral source, FH, Med Hx, Meds, Allergies, Tx in Clinic, Dental coverage, teeth restored, date of treatment, surfaces restored)
Appendix 1 & 2 MRN 447013
376 803932482
805011918
805043758
805163399 805329020
Reviewers
A.S
35/35 73/77 96/97 110/112 35/35 77/77 M.S
805336035
805462308
805663299
805714202 Total Agreement
34/35 42/42 28/28 27/28 557/566 98.4%
Pilot 2: 10 Radiographs (Items compared: Tooth number,
pre/post SSC, resorption, PAI score)
Appendix 3 Patient # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reviewers A.S
10/10 5/5 10/10 5/5 5/5 5/5 M.G & A.M
7 8 9 10 Total Agreement
5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 60/60 100.0%
172
LITERATURE CITED
Accardo, P. J., Whitman, B. Y., & Behr, S. K. (2002). Dictionary of developmental disabilities terminology (2nd ed.). Baltimore, Md.: Paul H. Brooks Pub.
Al-‐Eheideb, A. A., & Herman, N. G. (2003). Outcomes of dental procedures performed on
children under general anesthesia. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 27(2), 181-‐183. Albers, J. (1979). Use of preformed stainless steel crowns in pedodontics. Quintessence
International, 10(6), 35-‐40. Allen, W. E. (1966). Stainless steel: its use in pedodontics. Dent Clin North Am, 357-‐363. American Academy Pediatric Dentistry. (2013). Guideline on caries-‐risk assessment and
management for infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dent, 35(5), E157-‐164. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-‐5®) (Fifth ed.): American Psychiatric Pub. Benn, D. K. (1990). Limitations of the digital image subtraction technique in assessing
alveolar bone crest changes due to misalignment errors during image capture. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 19(3), 97-‐104. doi: 10.1038/dmfr.19.3.2088789
Berman, M. H. (1994). In praise of the stainless steel crown. Pediatr Dent, 16(3), 178. Bimstein, E. (1992). Frequency of alveolar bone loss adjacent to proximal caries in the
primary molars and healing due to restoration of the teeth. Pediatr Dent, 14(1), 30-‐33.
Bimstein, E., Delaney, J. E., & Sweeney, E. A. (1988). Radiographic assessment of the
alveolar bone in children and adolescents. Pediatr Dent, 10(3), 199-‐204. Bimstein, E., & Garcia-‐Godoy, F. (1994). The significance of age, proximal caries, gingival
inflammation, probing depths and the loss of lamina dura in the diagnosis of alveolar bone loss in the primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child, 61(2), 125-‐128.
Bimstein, E., Shapira, L., Landau, E., & Sela, M. N. (1993). The relationship between alveolar
bone loss and proximal caries in children: prevalence and microbiology. ASDC J Dent Child, 60(2), 99-‐103.
Bimstein, E., Zaidenberg, R., & Soskolne, A. W. (1996). Alveolar bone loss and restorative
dentistry in the primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 21(1), 51-‐54. Bohaty, B., & Spencer, P. (1992). Trends in dental treatment rendered under general
anesthesia, 1978 to 1990. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 16(3), 222-‐224.
173
Braff, M. H. (1975). A comparison between stainless steel crowns and multisurface amalgams in primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child, 42(6), 474-‐478.
Brook, A. H., & King, N. M. (1982). The role of stainless crowns. Part 1. Properties and
techniques. Dent Update, 9(1), 25-‐26, 28-‐30. Brynolf, I. (1967). A histological and roentgenological study of the periapical region of
human upper incisors (A. Wiksell Ed. Supplement II ed. Vol. 18). Sweden: CWK Gleerup Lund.
Burtner, A. P., & Dicks, J. L. (1994). Providing oral health care to individuals with severe
disabilities residing in the community: alternative care delivery systems. Spec Care Dentist, 14(5), 188-‐193.
Casamassimo, P. S. (1994). The venerable stainless steel crown. Pediatr Dent, 16(2), 83. Chohayeb, A. A. (1985). Prevalent medical and dental conditions among the handicapped.
Spec Care Dentist, 5(3), 114-‐115. Croll, T. P. (1987). Permanent molar stainless steel crown restoration. Quintessence Int,
18(5), 313-‐321. Croll, T. P. (1993). Restorative dentistry materials for children: the 1990's and beyond.
ASDC J Dent Child, 60(4-‐5), 260-‐262. Croll, T. P. (1999). Preformed posterior stainless steel crowns: an update. Compend Contin
Educ Dent, 20(2), 89-‐92, 94-‐86, 98-‐100 passim; quiz 106. Croll, T. P., & Castaldi, C. R. (1978). The preformed stainless steel crown for restoration of
permanent posterior teeth in special cases. J Am Dent Assoc, 97(4), 644-‐649. Croll, T. P., & Killian, C. M. (1992). Zinc oxide-‐eugenol pulpotomy and stainless steel crown
restoration of a primary molar. Quintessence Int, 23(6), 383-‐388. Croll, T. P., & Riesenberger, R. E. (1986). Primary molar stainless steel crown restoration.
Quintessence Int, 17(4), 221-‐226. Dawson, L. R., Simon, J. F., Jr., & Taylor, P. P. (1981). Use of amalgam and stainless steel
restorations for primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child, 48(6), 420-‐422. De Backer, H., Van Maele, G., De Moor, N., & Van den Berghe, L. (2007). Survival of complete
crowns and periodontal health: 18-‐year retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont, 20(2), 151-‐158.
174
De Backer, H., Van Maele, G., De Moor, N., Van den Berghe, L., & De Boever, J. (2006). An 18-‐year retrospective survival study of full crowns with or without posts. Int J Prosthodont, 19(2), 136-‐142.
Drummond, B. K., Davidson, L. E., Williams, S. M., Moffat, S. M., & Ayers, K. M. (2004).
Outcomes two, three and four years after comprehensive care under general anaesthesia. N Z Dent J, 100(2), 32-‐37.
Duggal, M., Curzon, M., Fayle, S., Pollard, M., & Robertson, A. (1995). Restorative techniques
in paediatric dentistry. (1st Edition ed.). London: Martin Dunitz. Duggal, M. S., & Curzon, M. E. (1989). Restoration of the broken down primary molar: 2.
Stainless steel crowns. Dent Update, 16(2), 71-‐72, 74-‐75. Einwag, J., & Dunninger, P. (1996). Stainless steel crown versus multisurface amalgam
restorations: an 8-‐year longitudinal clinical study. Quintessence Int, 27(5), 321-‐323. Engel, R. (1950). Chrome steel as used in children's dentistry. Chronicle: Omaha Distrist
Dental Society Journal, 13, 255-‐258. Eriksson, A. L., Paunio, P., & Isotupa, K. (1988). Restoration of deciduous molars with ion-‐
crowns: retention and subsequent treatment. Proc Finn Dent Soc, 84(2), 95-‐99. Ettinger, R. L., Kambhu, P. P., Asmussen, C. M., & Damiano, P. C. (1998). An in vitro
evaluation of the integrity of stainless steel crown margins cemented with different luting agents. Spec Care Dentist, 18(2), 78-‐83.
Federal Provincial Territorial Directors of Income Support. (2010). Social Assistance
Statistical Report: 2008. Quebec. Federation Dentaire Internationale. (1982). Recommendations for clinical research
protocols for dental materials. Federation Dentaire Internationale, Commission on Dental Products. Int Dent J, 32(4), 403-‐423.
Fieldman, B. S., & Cohen, M. M., Sr. (1979). A simple efficient method for utilizing the
stainless steel crown. ASDC J Dent Child, 46(6), 464-‐469. Full, C. A., Walker, J. D., & Pinkham, J. R. (1974). Stainless steel crowns for deciduous
molars. J Am Dent Assoc, 89(2), 360-‐364. Goldberg, N. L. (1969). The stainless steel crown in pediatric dentistry. Dent Dig, 75(9),
352-‐355. Gordon, P. (1979). An early clinical assessment of a preformed permanent molar crown.
Dent Update, 6, 135-‐138.
175
Health Canada. (2010, 2010-‐04-‐16). Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) Oral Health Statistics (2007-‐2009). Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/oral-bucco/fact-fiche-oral-bucco-stat-eng.php
Henderson, H. Z. (1973). Evaluation of the preformed stainless steel crown. ASDC J Dent
Child, 40(5), 353-‐358. Hinding, J. (1976). The restoration of primary molars with stainless steel crowns. Dental
Survey, 52(1), 20-‐24. Hulland, S. (1997). A retrospective review and analysis of the need for a hospital-‐based dental
care program for the adult with disabilities. (MSc Thesis), University of Torontoq, Toronto.
Hulland, S., & Sigal, M. (2000). Hospital-‐based dental care for persons with disabilities: a
study of patient selection criteria. Special Care Dentistry, 20, 131-‐138. Kaplan, E. L., and Meier, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete
observations. Journal of American Statistical Association, 53, 457-‐481. Kerosuo, E., & Orstavik, D. (1997). Application of computerised image analysis to
monitoring endodontic therapy: reproducibility and comparison with visual assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 26(2), 79-‐84. doi: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600207
Kimmelman, B., & Riesner, A. (1977). Soft stainless steel crown as in intermediate
restoration: observations in clinical practice. Gen Dent, 25, 21-‐23. Kindelan, S. A., Day, P., Nichol, R., Willmott, N., & Fayle, S. A. (2008). UK National Clinical
Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent, 18 Suppl 1, 20-‐28. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-‐263X.2008.00935.x
Knoernschild, K. L., & Campbell, S. D. (2000). Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of
artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent, 84(5), 492-‐498. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2000.110262
Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics, 33, 159-‐174. McKnight-‐Hanes, C., Myers, D. R., Dushku, J. C., & Barenie, J. T. (1991). A comparison of
general dentists' and pediatric dentists' treatment recommendations for primary teeth. Pediatr Dent, 13(6), 344-‐348.
Melville, M. R., Pool, D. M., Jaffe, E. C., Gelbier, S., & Tulley, W. J. (1981). A dental service for
handicapped children. Br Dent J, 151(8), 259-‐261.
176
Merry, A. J., & Edwards, D. M. (2002). Disability part 1: the disability discrimination act (1995)-‐-‐implications for dentists. Br Dent J, 193(4), 199-‐201.
Messer, L. B., & Levering, N. J. (1988). The durability of primary molar restorations: II.
Observations and predictions of success of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent, 10(2), 81-‐85.
Mink, J. R., & Bennett, I. C. (1968). The stainless steel crown. J Ont Dent Assoc, 45(10), 420-‐
430. Miyamoto, T., Morgano, S. M., Kumagai, T., Jones, J. A., & Nunn, M. E. (2007). Treatment
history of teeth in relation to the longevity of the teeth and their restorations: outcomes of teeth treated and maintained for 15 years. J Prosthet Dent, 97(3), 150-‐156. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.01.007
More, F. G., & Pink, T. C. (1973). The stainless steel crown: a clinical guide. J Mich State Dent
Assoc, 55(15), 237-‐242. Murray, R. R., & Madden, P. W. (1997). Amalgam-‐reinforced stainless steel crown for
restoration of permanent molars. Oper Dent, 22(1), 41-‐44. Myers, D. R. (1976). The restoration of primary molars with stainless steel crowns. ASDC J
Dent Child, 43(6), 406-‐409. Nash, D. A. (1981). The nickel-‐chromium crown for restoring posterior primary teeth. J Am
Dent Assoc, 102(1), 44-‐49. Needleman, I., Suvan, J., Moles, D. R., & Pimlott, J. (2005). A systematic review of
professional mechanical plaque removal for prevention of periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol, 32 Suppl 6, 229-‐282. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-‐051X.2005.00804.x
Nunn, J. H., Davidson, G., Gordon, P. H., & Storrs, J. (1995). A retrospective review of a
service to provide comprehensive dental care under general anesthesia. Spec Care Dentist, 15(3), 97-‐101.
O'Sullivan, E., & Curzon, M. (1991). The efficacy of comprehensive dental care for children
under general anaesthesia. Br Dent J, 171, 56-‐58. Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. (2014, 2014-‐03-‐28). Social assistance
in Ontario: Reports-‐ Ontario Works. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/reports/ow_quarterly.aspx
Opdam, N. J., Bronkhorst, E. M., Loomans, B. A., & Huysmans, M. C. (2010). 12-‐year survival
of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res, 89(10), 1063-‐1067. doi: 10.1177/0022034510376071
177
Opdam, N. J., Bronkhorst, E. M., Roeters, J. M., & Loomans, B. A. (2007). A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater, 23(1), 2-‐8. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036
Orstavik, D., Kerekes, K., & Eriksen, H. M. (1986). The periapical index: a scoring system for
radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Endod Dent Traumatol, 2(1), 20-‐34. Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. (2009). Levels of evidence and grades of
recommendation. Retrieved July 31, 2015 http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/
Page, J. (1973). Stainless steel crowns for posterior teeth. Proc Br Paedodont Soc., 3, 21-‐24. Papathanasiou, A. G., Curzon, M. E., & Fairpo, C. G. (1994). The influence of restorative
material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent, 16(4), 282-‐288.
Pinkerton, J. (2001). Intraprofessional controversies: reflections on the stainless steel
crown. ASDC J Dent Children, 68, 292-‐293. Pjetursson, B. E., Sailer, I., Zwahlen, M., & Hammerle, C. H. (2007). A systematic review of
the survival and complication rates of all-‐ceramic and metal-‐ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: Single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res, 18 Suppl 3, 73-‐85. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-‐0501.2007.01467.x
Radcliffe, R. M., & Cullen, C. L. (1991). Preservation of future options: restorative
procedures on first permanent molars in children. ASDC J Dent Child, 58(2), 104-‐108. Randall, R. C. (2002). Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth:
review of the literature. Pediatr Dent, 24(5), 489-‐500. Rapp, R. (1966). A simplified yet precise technic for the placement of stainless steel crowns
on primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Children(33), 101-‐109. Ridao-‐Sacie, C., Segura-‐Egea, J. J., Fernandez-‐Palacin, A., Bullon-‐Fernandez, P., & Rios-‐
Santos, J. V. (2007). Radiological assessment of periapical status using the periapical index: comparison of periapical radiography and digital panoramic radiography. Int Endod J, 40(6), 433-‐440. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-‐2591.2007.01233.x
Roberts, J. F. (1983). The open-‐face stainless steel crown for primary molars. ASDC J Dent
Child, 50(4), 262-‐263. Roberts, J. F., Attari, N., & Sherriff, M. (2005). The survival of resin modified glass ionomer
and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J, 198(7), 427-‐431. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4812197
178
Roberts, J. F., & Sherriff, M. (1990). The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown molar restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J, 169(8), 237-‐244.
SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT 9.2 User's Guide (Second ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.,. Seale, N. S. (2002). The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent, 24(5), 501-‐505. Seale, N. S., & Randall, R. (2015). The use of stainless steel crowns: a systematic literature
review. Pediatr Dent, 37(2), 145-‐160. Sharaf, A. A., & Farsi, N. M. (2004). A clinical and radiographic evaluation of stainless steel
crowns for primary molars. J Dent, 32(1), 27-‐33. Sigal, A., & Sigal, M. (2006). Overview of a hospital based dental programme for persons
with special needs Journal of Disability and Oral Health, 7(3), 176-‐184. Simecek, J. W., Diefenderfer, K. E., & Cohen, M. E. (2009). An evaluation of replacement rates
for posterior resin-‐based composite and amalgam restorations in U.S. Navy and marine corps recruits. J Am Dent Assoc, 140(2), 200-‐209; quiz 249.
Simon, J. (1984). Pathways of the pulp. St. Louis: MS: CV Mosby. Soncini, J. A., Maserejian, N. N., Trachtenberg, F., Tavares, M., & Hayes, C. (2007). The
longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc, 138(6), 763-‐772.
Sreebny, L. M., & Schwartz, S. S. (1997). A reference guide to drugs and dry mouth-‐-‐2nd
edition. Gerodontology, 14(1), 33-‐47. Statistics Canada. (2014, 09/13/2014). Financial Security -‐ Low income incidence.
Retrieved 09/13/2014, from http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=23 Statistics Canada. (2011, 2013-‐06-‐27). Persons in low income after tax: summary tables.
Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil19e-eng.htm
Tate, A. R., Ng, M. W., Needleman, H. L., & Acs, G. (2002). Failure rates of restorative
procedures following dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia. Pediatr Dent, 24(1), 69-‐71.
Tesini, D. A. (1981). An annotated review of the literature of dental caries and periodontal
disease in mentally retarded individuals. Spec Care Dentist, 1(2), 75-‐87.
179
Threlfall, A. G., Pilkington, L., Milsom, K. M., Blinkhorn, A. S., & Tickle, M. (2005). General dental practitioners' views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Br Dent J, 199(7), 453-‐455; discussion 441. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4812746
Titley, K., & Farkouh, D. (2001). Paediatrics: The stainless steel crown -‐ an underused
restoration in paediatric dentistry. Oral Health Journal, 91(7), 50-‐53. Trope, M., Delano, E. O., & Orstavik, D. (1999). Endodontic treatment of teeth with apical
periodontitis: single vs. multivisit treatment. J Endod, 25(5), 345-‐350. doi: 10.1016/s0099-‐2399(06)81169-‐6
Valderhaug, J. (1972). A histologic study of experimentally induced radicular cysts. Int J
Oral Surg, 1(3), 137-‐147. Van Nieuwenhuysen, J. P., D'Hoore, W., Carvalho, J., & Qvist, V. (2003). Long-‐term
evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent, 31(6), 395-‐405. White, S. C., & Pharoah, M. J. (2009). Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation (J. Dolan
Ed. 6th Edition ed.). China: Mosby/Elsevier. Williams, R. L. (1995). Product-‐limit survival functions with correlated survival times.
Lifetime Data Analysis, 1, 171-‐186. World Health Organization. (2001). ICF : International classification of functioning, disability
and health (Short ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization. Zagdwon, A. M., Fayle, S. A., & Pollard, M. A. (2003). A prospective clinical trial comparing
preformed metal crowns and cast restorations for defective first permanent molars. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 4(3), 138-‐142.