Comparison of four different treatment strategies in teeth with molar‐incisor hypomineralization‐related enamel breakdown–A retrospective cohort study
Thomas Linner, Yeganeh Khazaei, Katharina Bücher, Jan Pfisterer, Reinhard Hickel, Jan Kühnisch
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little information available on the longevity of non-invasive glass ionomer cement (GIC) and composite restorations as well as conventional composite and ceramic restorations placed on permanent teeth with enamel breakdowns due to molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH). AIM: To compare the longevity of the abovementioned treatment procedures. DESIGN: Of 377 identified MIH patients, 118 individuals received restorative treatment and were invited for clinical examination, including caries and MIH status. Finally, survival data from 204 MIH-related restorations placed on 127 teeth were retrospectively collected from 52 children, monitored between 2010 and 2018. Descriptive and explorative analyses were performed, including Kaplan-Meier estimators and the Cox regression model. RESULTS: The mean patient observation time was 42.9 months (SD = 35.1). The cumulative survival probabilities after 36 months-7.0% (GIC, N = 28), 29.9% (non-invasive composite restoration, N = 126), 76.2% (conventional composite restoration, N = 27) and 100.0% (ceramic restoration, N = 23)-differed significantly in the regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional restorations were associated with moderate-to-high survival rates in MIH teeth. In contrast, non-invasive composite restorations, which were predominately used in younger or less cooperative children, were linked to lower survival rates.