Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Short Glass-fiber-reinforced Composite in Endodontically Treated Teeth: 3-year Results.
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, Seda Aydemir, Mustafa Demirci, Safa Tuncer, Elif İlgi Sancak, 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.
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.