ArticleDental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology2026
Clinical Outcomes of Fragment Reattachment and Direct Composite Restoration for Anterior Crown Fractures in Permanent Teeth: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Frontiers in Dental Traumatology: Innovation, Prevention, and Clinical Practice.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026Article
- Fracture Resistance of Reattached Tooth Fragments: Influence of Adhesive Curing Mode and Composite Viscosity.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Dental Traumatology in Contemporary Practice: From Evidence to Education and Clinical Practice.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026Article
- Canine Periodontal Disease in an Urban Clinical Setting and Its Relationship with Host Factors and the Subgingival Bacterial Profile in Ecuador.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimIn clinical practice, fragment reattachment and direct composite restoration are commonly used to restore fractured anterior teeth. However, the comparative studies about these two treatments in children and adolescents remain limited. This study aims to evaluate their clinical longevity in pediatric patients and identify risk factors associated with failure. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study analyzed the clinical records of patients with anterior crown fractures treated by fragment reattachment or direct composite restoration from January 2021 to December 2022. Experienced pediatric dentists performed diagnoses and treatments in strict accordance with the latest International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines. Restorative and biological survival rates were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and potential prognostic factors were identified by Cox proportional hazards regression modeling.
resultsOverall, 439 patients (mean age, 8.8 ± 1.5 years; range, 6-14 years) with 500 teeth were included, with a mean follow-up period of 31.1 ± 5.8 months. Fragment reattachment was performed on 63 teeth, while 437 teeth received direct composite restoration. The cumulative survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 76.2% and 71.4% for fragment reattachment, and 87.4% and 81.0% for direct composite restoration, respectively. The Log-rank test revealed no statistically significant difference in survival rates between the two groups for either restorative or biological failure. The stratified multivariate analysis revealed that age (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.66-0.90, p = 0.001) and fracture pattern (Class C: HR = 4.45, 95% CI: 1.87-10.58, p < 0.001 and Class c1: HR = 7.28, 95% CI: 1.79-29.53, p = 0.005) significantly influenced the survival rates of teeth treated by direct composite restoration. The rates of restorative and biological failure did not differ significantly between these two treatments for either uncomplicated or complicated crown fractures. A considerable proportion of failures occurred within the first 12 months after the initial treatment.
conclusionBoth fragment reattachment and direct composite restoration demonstrated favorable clinical effects on the treatment of permanent anterior crown fractures in children and adolescents. Fragment reattachment was recommended as the primary treatment option for pediatric patients due to its clinical advantages in procedural simplicity, time efficiency, and aesthetic preservation. It can be concluded that younger age and teeth with Classes C and c1 fracture patterns significantly increase failure risks in direct composite restorations. Close follow-up is highly recommended during the first 12 months post-treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.