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

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