{"title":"磨光牙釉质与未磨光牙釉质对正畸治疗后直接复合修复临床表现的影响:五年随访。","authors":"M Demirci, S Tuncer, N Tekçe, E Öztaş, C Baydemir","doi":"10.2341/22-143-C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the clinical performance of restorations with ground and unground enamel for diastema closure.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Twenty-four patients attended and received two to ten composite build-ups for diastema closure. The restorations were performed separately by grinding and not grinding the enamel on the proximal surfaces on symmetric teeth. A nanofill direct composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) for restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cumulative success rate of direct composite build-up with ground and unground enamel was 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Six restorations with unground enamel failed due to fracture. No significant difference was found between the restorations with ground enamel and unground enamel with regard to the evaluation criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 5-year success rates of restorations with ground and unground enamel were excellent. The success rate of restorations with ground enamel was higher than that of restorations with unground enamel. Fracture was the reason for failure in the restorations with unground enamel.</p>","PeriodicalId":19502,"journal":{"name":"Operative dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up.\",\"authors\":\"M Demirci, S Tuncer, N Tekçe, E Öztaş, C Baydemir\",\"doi\":\"10.2341/22-143-C\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the clinical performance of restorations with ground and unground enamel for diastema closure.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Twenty-four patients attended and received two to ten composite build-ups for diastema closure. The restorations were performed separately by grinding and not grinding the enamel on the proximal surfaces on symmetric teeth. A nanofill direct composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) for restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cumulative success rate of direct composite build-up with ground and unground enamel was 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Six restorations with unground enamel failed due to fracture. No significant difference was found between the restorations with ground enamel and unground enamel with regard to the evaluation criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 5-year success rates of restorations with ground and unground enamel were excellent. The success rate of restorations with ground enamel was higher than that of restorations with unground enamel. Fracture was the reason for failure in the restorations with unground enamel.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2341/22-143-C\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2341/22-143-C","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up.
Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of restorations with ground and unground enamel for diastema closure.
Methods and materials: Twenty-four patients attended and received two to ten composite build-ups for diastema closure. The restorations were performed separately by grinding and not grinding the enamel on the proximal surfaces on symmetric teeth. A nanofill direct composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) for restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls.
Results: The cumulative success rate of direct composite build-up with ground and unground enamel was 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Six restorations with unground enamel failed due to fracture. No significant difference was found between the restorations with ground enamel and unground enamel with regard to the evaluation criteria.
Conclusion: The 5-year success rates of restorations with ground and unground enamel were excellent. The success rate of restorations with ground enamel was higher than that of restorations with unground enamel. Fracture was the reason for failure in the restorations with unground enamel.
期刊介绍:
Operative Dentistry is a refereed, international journal published bi-monthly and distributed to subscribers in over 50 countries. In 2012, we printed 84 articles (672 pages). Papers were submitted by authors from 45 countries, in the categories of Clinical Research, Laboratory Research, Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations and Invited Papers, as well as Editorials and Abstracts.
One of the strong points of our journal is that our current publication time for accepted manuscripts is 4 to 6 months from the date of submission. Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations have a very quick turnaround time, which allows for very rapid publication of clinical based concepts. We also provide color for those papers that would benefit from its use.
The journal does not accept any advertising but you will find postings for faculty positions. Additionally, the journal also does not rent, sell or otherwise allow its subscriber list to be used by any other entity