Multifactorial Contributors to the Longevity of Dental Restorations: An Integrated Review of Related Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This integrated review aims to identify and analyze the multifactorial contributors to the longevity of direct restorations, focusing on tooth-, patient-, and dentist-related factors. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using an electronic database, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus, between 1980 and 2024. Titles and abstracts of papers that evaluated aspects categorized into tooth-related, patient-related, and dentist-related factors influencing restoration failure were selected and screened. Full-text assessments were conducted, and the extracted data were compiled, summarized, and synthesized. The reference lists of the collected papers were also screened, and relevant citations were included in this review. Data were gathered from clinical and laboratorial studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses to provide a comprehensive understanding of restoration longevity. Results: Among the tooth-related factors, multiple-surface restorations, deep margins, tooth location, and tooth vitality significantly impact restoration survival. Patient-related factors such as medical conditions, risk predictors of caries, age, sex, parafunctional habits, smoking, periodontal health, number of restorations, and socioeconomic status all play crucial roles. Regarding dentist-related factors, the decision-making process, age, experience, and dentist manual dexterity are vital aspects. Furthermore, the technique used, including isolation methods for moisture control, as well as the type of dental practice (large group vs. small practice), notably influenced the restoration survival. Conclusions: The longevity of dental restorations is influenced by a complex interplay of tooth-related, patient-related, and dentist-related factors. Strategies to improve restoration outcomes should consider all these multifactorial contributors. Continuing professional education, diligent patient guidance on the factors that influence restoration survival, careful material selection and restorative technique, and tailored individual treatment are crucial factors to reduce failure rates and improve the lifespan of restorations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".