12-year Survival of Composite <i>vs</i>. Amalgam Restorations

TLDR

Long‑term survival data for large amalgam and composite restorations are lacking. This retrospective study compares the longevity of three‑ and four‑/five‑surface amalgam and composite restorations relative to patients’ caries risk. Patient records from a general practice were used to evaluate 1949 large class II restorations (1202 amalgam, 747 composite), recording placement, replacement, and failure dates and caries risk, with survival calculated via Kaplan–Meier statistics. After 12 years, 293 amalgam and 114 composite restorations failed; overall, large composite restorations had higher survival, especially in low‑risk patients, while for three‑surface restorations in high‑risk patients, amalgam performed better.

Abstract

Information about the long-term clinical survival of large amalgam and composite restorations is still lacking. This retrospective study compares the longevity of three- and four-/five-surface amalgam and composite restorations relative to patients’ caries risk. Patient records from a general practice were used for data collection. We evaluated 1949 large class II restorations (1202 amalgam/747 composite). Dates of placement, replacement, and failure were recorded, and caries risk of patients was assessed. Survival was calculated from Kaplan-Meier statistics. After 12 years, 293 amalgam and 114 composite restorations had failed. Large composite restorations showed a higher survival in the combined population and in the low-risk group. For three-surface restorations in high-risk patients, amalgam showed better survival.