Clinical evaluation of etiological co-variables, characteristics, and treatment modalities of noncarious cervical lesions.

Dhwani Morakhia, Geeta Asthana, Ravina Parmar, Anooja Mathirat, Rajahree Tamuli
{"title":"Clinical evaluation of etiological co-variables, characteristics, and treatment modalities of noncarious cervical lesions.","authors":"Dhwani Morakhia, Geeta Asthana, Ravina Parmar, Anooja Mathirat, Rajahree Tamuli","doi":"10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_55_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) pose a clinical challenge due to multifactorial aetiology and varied clinical presentations, making it essential to understand their characteristics and treatment modalities to improve treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim and objectives: </strong>To study multifactorial aetiology, clinical characteristics and management using tooth-coloured materials.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patient's case history was noted to determine aetiology and characteristics of NCCL. Study included 180 teeth, divided in two main groups based on shape of the lesion- Group 1(<i>n</i>=90): Saucer/round-shaped NCCL and Group 2(<i>n</i>=90): Wedge-shaped NCCL. Groups were further divided in three subgroups as per restorative materials used -Group1a & Group 2a: RMGIC, Group 1b & Group 2b: Flowable Bulk-fill Composite, and Group 1c & 2c: Packable Composite. Assessment was done using Revised FDI Criteria at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Statistics was performed using SPSS version 26.0. Intragroup comparison was done using repeated measures ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc test. Intergroup analysis was done using independent t-test and one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RMGIC demonstrated least postoperative sensitivity in wedge-shaped lesions compared to bulk-fill-flowable and packable composites. All materials showed similar performance in wedge-shaped lesions, but RMGIC exhibited higher surface roughness in saucer-shaped lesions. Packable composites showed more marginal staining in wedge-shaped lesions, while RMGIC had the least staining in saucer-shaped lesions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Understanding the interplay between abrasion, biocorrosion, and abfraction is crucial for long-term treatment outcomes. The overall performance of RMGIC was better for wedge shaped, and bulk-fill flowable performed better in saucer shaped lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":516842,"journal":{"name":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","volume":"28 4","pages":"371-376"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12037118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_55_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) pose a clinical challenge due to multifactorial aetiology and varied clinical presentations, making it essential to understand their characteristics and treatment modalities to improve treatment outcomes.

Aim and objectives: To study multifactorial aetiology, clinical characteristics and management using tooth-coloured materials.

Materials and methods: Patient's case history was noted to determine aetiology and characteristics of NCCL. Study included 180 teeth, divided in two main groups based on shape of the lesion- Group 1(n=90): Saucer/round-shaped NCCL and Group 2(n=90): Wedge-shaped NCCL. Groups were further divided in three subgroups as per restorative materials used -Group1a & Group 2a: RMGIC, Group 1b & Group 2b: Flowable Bulk-fill Composite, and Group 1c & 2c: Packable Composite. Assessment was done using Revised FDI Criteria at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Statistics was performed using SPSS version 26.0. Intragroup comparison was done using repeated measures ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc test. Intergroup analysis was done using independent t-test and one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc test.

Results: RMGIC demonstrated least postoperative sensitivity in wedge-shaped lesions compared to bulk-fill-flowable and packable composites. All materials showed similar performance in wedge-shaped lesions, but RMGIC exhibited higher surface roughness in saucer-shaped lesions. Packable composites showed more marginal staining in wedge-shaped lesions, while RMGIC had the least staining in saucer-shaped lesions.

Conclusion: Understanding the interplay between abrasion, biocorrosion, and abfraction is crucial for long-term treatment outcomes. The overall performance of RMGIC was better for wedge shaped, and bulk-fill flowable performed better in saucer shaped lesions.

宫颈非恶性病变的病因、特征和治疗方式的临床评价。
背景:非龋牙性宫颈病变(ncls)因其多因素病因和多种临床表现而构成临床挑战,因此了解其特征和治疗方式以提高治疗效果至关重要。目的:探讨牙色材料的多因素病因、临床特点及处理方法。材料和方法:记录患者的病史,确定NCCL的病因和特征。研究纳入180颗牙齿,根据病变形状分为两组:第一组(n=90):碟状/圆形NCCL;第二组(n=90):楔形NCCL。各组根据所使用的修复材料进一步分为三个亚组-组1a和组2a: RMGIC,组1b和组2b:可流动填充复合材料,组1c和2c:可包装复合材料。评估采用修订后的外国直接投资标准,分别在基线、3个月、6个月和12个月进行。采用SPSS 26.0版本进行统计学分析。组内比较采用重复测量方差分析和Bonferroni事后检验。组间分析采用独立t检验和单因素方差分析,并采用Bonferroni事后检验。结果:与大块填充-流动和可包装复合材料相比,RMGIC在楔形病变中表现出最低的术后敏感性。所有材料在楔形病变中表现出相似的性能,但RMGIC在碟状病变中表现出更高的表面粗糙度。可包装复合材料在楔形病变中显示更多的边缘染色,而RMGIC在碟状病变中染色最少。结论:了解磨损、生物腐蚀和抽脱之间的相互作用对长期治疗效果至关重要。RMGIC在楔形病变中表现较好,在碟状病变中表现较好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信