Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Short Glass-fiber-reinforced Composite in Endodontically Treated Teeth: 3-year Results.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Neslihan Tekçe, Seda Aydemir, Mustafa Demirci, Safa Tuncer, Elif İlgi Sancak, Canan Baydemir
{"title":"Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Short Glass-fiber-reinforced Composite in Endodontically Treated Teeth: 3-year Results.","authors":"Neslihan Tekçe,&nbsp;Seda Aydemir,&nbsp;Mustafa Demirci,&nbsp;Safa Tuncer,&nbsp;Elif İlgi Sancak,&nbsp;Canan Baydemir","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.a44279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the clinical performance of direct posterior composite restorations with and without short glass-fiber (SGF) reinforced composite in endodontically treated teeth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-four patients (mean age 32.5 years) were included in the study and two molars of each patient received endodontic treatment. After endodontic treatment, one tooth was restored with G-aenial Bond/fiber-reinforced composite (everX Posterior GC) using a microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior), and the other tooth was restored with G-aenial Bond/microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior). The modified USPHS criteria were used to evaluate the restorations at baseline, 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-ups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The success rate of the everX Posterior and G-aenial Posterior restorations after 3 years was 78.3% and 91.3%, respectively. Five everX Posterior restorations and two G-aenial Posterior restorations failed. Based on the criteria used in this study, no significant differences between the two restorations were found at any evaluation time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All restorations showed acceptable clinical performance regarding all evaluation criteria, apart from the failed restorations. The main cause of restoration failure was restoration fracture. The failure rate of everX Posterior restorations was higher than G-aenial Posterior restorations.</p>","PeriodicalId":55604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","volume":"22 2","pages":"127-137"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a44279","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of direct posterior composite restorations with and without short glass-fiber (SGF) reinforced composite in endodontically treated teeth.

Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients (mean age 32.5 years) were included in the study and two molars of each patient received endodontic treatment. After endodontic treatment, one tooth was restored with G-aenial Bond/fiber-reinforced composite (everX Posterior GC) using a microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior), and the other tooth was restored with G-aenial Bond/microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior). The modified USPHS criteria were used to evaluate the restorations at baseline, 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-ups.

Results: The success rate of the everX Posterior and G-aenial Posterior restorations after 3 years was 78.3% and 91.3%, respectively. Five everX Posterior restorations and two G-aenial Posterior restorations failed. Based on the criteria used in this study, no significant differences between the two restorations were found at any evaluation time.

Conclusion: All restorations showed acceptable clinical performance regarding all evaluation criteria, apart from the failed restorations. The main cause of restoration failure was restoration fracture. The failure rate of everX Posterior restorations was higher than G-aenial Posterior restorations.

短玻璃纤维增强复合材料与非短玻璃纤维增强复合材料直接后牙复合修复体在牙髓治疗中的临床效果:3年观察
目的:评价短玻璃纤维(SGF)增强复合材料直接后牙复合修复体在牙髓治疗中的临床效果。材料与方法:24例患者,平均年龄32.5岁,每例患者2颗磨牙接受根管治疗。根管治疗后,一颗牙采用g - enial Bond/纤维增强复合材料(everX Posterior GC)修复,另一颗牙采用G-aenial Bond/微复合材料(G-aenial Posterior)修复。使用改良的USPHS标准在基线、1年、2年和3年随访时评估修复体。结果:3年后后牙体和后牙体修复成功率分别为78.3%和91.3%。5例everX后牙修复体和2例g - enial后牙修复体失败。根据本研究使用的标准,在任何评估时间,两种修复体之间均未发现显著差异。结论:除修复体不合格外,所有修复体的临床表现均为可接受的。复位失败的主要原因是复位骨折。everX后牙修复体的失败率高于g - enial后牙修复体。
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
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.10%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: New materials and applications for adhesion are profoundly changing the way dentistry is delivered. Bonding techniques, which have long been restricted to the tooth hard tissues, enamel, and dentin, have obvious applications in operative and preventive dentistry, as well as in esthetic and pediatric dentistry, prosthodontics, and orthodontics. The current development of adhesive techniques for soft tissues and slow-releasing agents will expand applications to include periodontics and oral surgery. Scientifically sound, peer-reviewed articles explore the latest innovations in these emerging fields.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信