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/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?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.