Direct restorations versus full crowns in endodontically treated molar teeth: A three-year randomized clinical trial

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105699
Motasum Abu-Awwad , Ruba Halasa , Laila Haikal , Ahmad El-Ma'aita , Mohammad Hammad , Haralampos Petridis
{"title":"Direct restorations versus full crowns in endodontically treated molar teeth: A three-year randomized clinical trial","authors":"Motasum Abu-Awwad ,&nbsp;Ruba Halasa ,&nbsp;Laila Haikal ,&nbsp;Ahmad El-Ma'aita ,&nbsp;Mohammad Hammad ,&nbsp;Haralampos Petridis","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To compare the survival and success rates of direct composite resin restorations versus metal-ceramic crowns in endodontically treated molar teeth with minimal structure loss.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This clinical trial included 60 participants, each with an endodontically treated molar with at least three remaining axial walls (&gt;2mm). Half of the participants received direct restorations, and half metal-ceramic crowns. USPHS criteria were used at baseline and annually for three years. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests analyzed survival/success rates. Cox regression evaluated predictors, and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests compared USPHS outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty-three participants completed the 3-year follow-up (7 dropped out). The three-year survival rate for crowns was 93.3 % (95 % CI: 78.7 %-98.2 %), while the direct restoration group had 76.7 % (95 % CI: 59.1 %-88.2 %). The difference was insignificant (<em>P</em> = 0.061). Success rates were also comparable (crowns=90.0 % vs. restorations=76.7 %; <em>P</em> = 0.138). Bruxism significantly predicted failure (HR=12.8, 95 % CI: 1.2–133.3, <em>P</em> = 0.032). Direct restorations had worse outcomes than crowns regarding caries (<em>P</em> = 0.018), surface texture (<em>P</em> = 0.019), and marginal integrity (<em>P</em> = 0.006). Crowns had worse outcomes in terms of periodontal indices (<em>P</em> = 0.032) and presence of periapical infection (<em>P</em> = 0.023). Over time, direct restorations significantly deteriorated in terms of caries (<em>P</em> = 0.041), margin discoloration (<em>P</em> = 0.007), margin integrity (<em>P</em> = 0.026), and fracture (<em>P</em> = 0.034), while crowns showed no significant changes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>For endodontically treated molars with minimal structure loss, both direct composite resin restorations and full crowns demonstrated similar survival and success after 3 years of function. However, crowns were more predictable, especially for bruxers. Direct restorations may suit cases with lower occlusal loads, endodontic monitoring, or budget constraints.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical significance</h3><div>This study showed similar 3-year survival/success rates of direct composite restorations compared to metal-ceramic crowns in restoring endodontically treated molar teeth with minimal structural loss. These results indicate that direct restorations may be suitable alternatives for molars with minimal structural loss, particularly in cases with reduced occlusal loads, a need for endodontic monitoring, or financial limitations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"156 ","pages":"Article 105699"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225001447","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the survival and success rates of direct composite resin restorations versus metal-ceramic crowns in endodontically treated molar teeth with minimal structure loss.

Methods

This clinical trial included 60 participants, each with an endodontically treated molar with at least three remaining axial walls (>2mm). Half of the participants received direct restorations, and half metal-ceramic crowns. USPHS criteria were used at baseline and annually for three years. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests analyzed survival/success rates. Cox regression evaluated predictors, and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests compared USPHS outcomes.

Results

Fifty-three participants completed the 3-year follow-up (7 dropped out). The three-year survival rate for crowns was 93.3 % (95 % CI: 78.7 %-98.2 %), while the direct restoration group had 76.7 % (95 % CI: 59.1 %-88.2 %). The difference was insignificant (P = 0.061). Success rates were also comparable (crowns=90.0 % vs. restorations=76.7 %; P = 0.138). Bruxism significantly predicted failure (HR=12.8, 95 % CI: 1.2–133.3, P = 0.032). Direct restorations had worse outcomes than crowns regarding caries (P = 0.018), surface texture (P = 0.019), and marginal integrity (P = 0.006). Crowns had worse outcomes in terms of periodontal indices (P = 0.032) and presence of periapical infection (P = 0.023). Over time, direct restorations significantly deteriorated in terms of caries (P = 0.041), margin discoloration (P = 0.007), margin integrity (P = 0.026), and fracture (P = 0.034), while crowns showed no significant changes.

Conclusion

For endodontically treated molars with minimal structure loss, both direct composite resin restorations and full crowns demonstrated similar survival and success after 3 years of function. However, crowns were more predictable, especially for bruxers. Direct restorations may suit cases with lower occlusal loads, endodontic monitoring, or budget constraints.

Clinical significance

This study showed similar 3-year survival/success rates of direct composite restorations compared to metal-ceramic crowns in restoring endodontically treated molar teeth with minimal structural loss. These results indicate that direct restorations may be suitable alternatives for molars with minimal structural loss, particularly in cases with reduced occlusal loads, a need for endodontic monitoring, or financial limitations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直接修复与全冠治疗磨牙:一项为期三年的随机临床试验。
目的:比较直接复合树脂修复体与金属陶瓷冠在最小结构损失的根管治疗中磨牙的存活率和成功率。方法:这项临床试验包括60名参与者,每个参与者都有根管治疗过的臼齿,至少有三个轴壁(>2mm)。一半的参与者接受直接修复,一半接受金属陶瓷冠。USPHS标准在基线和每年使用三年。Kaplan-Meier和log-rank检验分析了生存率和成功率。Cox回归评估预测因子,Mann-Whitney U和Wilcoxon检验比较USPHS结果。结果:53名参与者完成了3年随访(7名退出)。冠的3年生存率为93.3% (95% CI: 78.7% ~ 98.2%),直接修复组为76.7% (95% CI: 59.1% ~ 88.2%)。差异无统计学意义(P=0.061)。成功率也具有可比性(冠=90.0% vs修复体=76.7%;P = 0.138)。磨牙明显预测失败(HR=12.8, 95% CI: 1.2 ~ 133.3, P= 0.032)。在龋齿(P= 0.018)、表面质地(P= 0.019)和边缘完整性(P= 0.006)方面,直接修复的结果比冠更差。在牙周指数(P= 0.032)和根尖周感染(P= 0.023)方面,冠组的结果更差。随着时间的推移,直接修复体在龋齿(P= 0.041)、边缘变色(P= 0.007)、边缘完整性(P= 0.026)和骨折(P= 0.034)方面明显恶化,而冠无明显变化。结论:对于根管治疗后结构损失最小的磨牙,直接复合树脂修复体和全冠修复体在3年后的存活率和成功率相似。然而,皇冠更容易预测,尤其是对bruxer。直接修复适用于咬合负荷较低、牙髓监测或预算限制的病例。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of dentistry
Journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
11.40%
发文量
349
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis. Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research. The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
AI-Driven Crown Generation: A Comparative Analysis of Point Cloud Completion Models for Mandibular First Molar Restoration. Assessing multimodal large language models for localizing dental implant fixtures on panoramic radiographs. Corrigendum to "Diagnostic accuracy of on-scan assessments compared to clinical assessments using a periodontal probe for detecting gingival recession: A cross-sectional study" [Journal of Dentistry Volume 166, March 2026, 106504]. Bridging the gap in implant dentistry education: Perspectives from Malaysia's graduating dental cohort. Clinical Performance of Digitally Planned Lithium Disilicate Restorations for Peg-Shaped Maxillary Lateral Incisors: A 5-Year Retrospective Study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1