Skip to main content

Table 3 Univariate and adjusted two-tailed Cox Regression Analysis between restorative treatment failure and prognostic factors

From: Use of rubber dam versus cotton roll isolation on composite resin restorations’ survival in primary molars: 2-year results from a non-inferiority clinical trial

Variable

Survival rate %

95% CI

HR Univariate

95% CI

p-value

HR Adjusted 95% CI

Two-tailed p-value

Group

 RDI (ref)

60.41

48.40–70.47

1.36 (0.82–2.23)

0.222

1.34 (0.81–2.19)

0.244

 CRI

54.31

42.52–64.67

    

Restoration

 New restoration (ref)

63.16

52.83–71.83

1.54 (0.95–2.52)

0.079

1.53 (0.93–2.52)

0.093

 Replacement

46.43

32.60–59.16

    

Number of Surfaces

 Single (ref)

62.65

45.69–75.64

1.18 (0.66–2.11)

0.565

1.08 (0.60–1.95)

0.782

 Multiple

55.43

45.74–64.08

    

Molar

 1st molar (ref)

52.95

41.36–63.25

0.72 (0.44–1.18)

0.203

 2nd molar

62.00

49.79–77.05

    

Caries experience (DMFT/dmft)

 Low (1–3) (ref)

52.38

26.54–72.97

1.02 (0.48–2.16)

0.956

 High (> 3)

57.67

48.86–65.51

    

Operator

 Specialist (ref)

56.70

45.27–66.61

1.04 (0.63–1.69)

0.872

 GDP

58.20

45.75–68.75

    

TOTAL

57.30

49.01–64.74

    
  1. HR = Hazard ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; SE = Standard Error p < 0.05–95% CI
  2. Adjusted analysis considered only study group, type of restoration and number of surfaces