Comparison of four different treatment strategies in teeth with molar-incisor hypomineralization-related enamel breakdown—A retrospective cohort study

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.