Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Strip Crown Restorations with Composite Resin vs Glass Hybrid Restorative System for Primary Anterior Teeth of Children with Early Childhood Caries: A Double-blind Parallel Group Randomized Controlled Trial.
{"title":"Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Strip Crown Restorations with Composite Resin vs Glass Hybrid Restorative System for Primary Anterior Teeth of Children with Early Childhood Caries: A Double-blind Parallel Group Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Nidhi Malik, Rashmi Nayak, Shashidhar Acharya","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Composite resin strip crowns (CRSC) are a popular choice for the restoration of primary incisors affected by early childhood caries (ECC). The inherent disadvantage of composite resins necessitates a search for more biological materials to be used for restorations in this high-caries-risk scenario.</p><p><strong>Aims and objective: </strong>This <i>in vivo</i> study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and parental satisfaction with strip crown restorations placed using a glass hybrid restorative system (GC Equia Forte HT) and CRSC (GC G-aenial anterior composite) in primary maxillary incisors.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 32 teeth from 16 children aged 3-6 years with ECC requiring multisurface restorations in their primary maxillary incisors were included and randomly assigned to the test group (GC Equia Forte) or the control group (GC G-aenial composite resin). Clinical assessment was done using Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria, and parental satisfaction was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale over 3 months. The Chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test were used for inferential and intergroup analysis, respectively, and intragroup analysis was done using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GC Equia Forte outperformed GC G-aenial composite resin in terms of esthetic parameters, that is, color match and translucency (<i>p</i> < 0.005). In terms of functional and biological aspects, the performance of both restorations was comparable. Parental satisfaction did not differ between the study groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that GC Equia Forte HT is a suitable and viable alternative to composite resin for strip crown restorations in pediatric patients with ECC.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>GC Equia Forte HT proves to be esthetically superior and functionally and biologically comparable to composite resin for strip crown restoration of carious primary incisors in precooperative-aged children with ECC.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Malik N, Nayak R, Acharya S. Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Strip Crown Restorations with Composite Resin vs Glass Hybrid Restorative System for Primary Anterior Teeth of Children with Early Childhood Caries: A Double-blind Parallel Group Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(8):922-929.</p>","PeriodicalId":36045,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","volume":"18 8","pages":"922-929"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12451600/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Composite resin strip crowns (CRSC) are a popular choice for the restoration of primary incisors affected by early childhood caries (ECC). The inherent disadvantage of composite resins necessitates a search for more biological materials to be used for restorations in this high-caries-risk scenario.
Aims and objective: This in vivo study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and parental satisfaction with strip crown restorations placed using a glass hybrid restorative system (GC Equia Forte HT) and CRSC (GC G-aenial anterior composite) in primary maxillary incisors.
Materials and methods: A total of 32 teeth from 16 children aged 3-6 years with ECC requiring multisurface restorations in their primary maxillary incisors were included and randomly assigned to the test group (GC Equia Forte) or the control group (GC G-aenial composite resin). Clinical assessment was done using Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria, and parental satisfaction was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale over 3 months. The Chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for inferential and intergroup analysis, respectively, and intragroup analysis was done using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Results: GC Equia Forte outperformed GC G-aenial composite resin in terms of esthetic parameters, that is, color match and translucency (p < 0.005). In terms of functional and biological aspects, the performance of both restorations was comparable. Parental satisfaction did not differ between the study groups.
Conclusion: The results suggest that GC Equia Forte HT is a suitable and viable alternative to composite resin for strip crown restorations in pediatric patients with ECC.
Clinical significance: GC Equia Forte HT proves to be esthetically superior and functionally and biologically comparable to composite resin for strip crown restoration of carious primary incisors in precooperative-aged children with ECC.
How to cite this article: Malik N, Nayak R, Acharya S. Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Strip Crown Restorations with Composite Resin vs Glass Hybrid Restorative System for Primary Anterior Teeth of Children with Early Childhood Caries: A Double-blind Parallel Group Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(8):922-929.