Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals


KOÇ VURAL U., MERAL E., ERGİN E., Gurgan S.

Clinical Oral Investigations, cilt.28, sa.3, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 28 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2024
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s00784-024-05570-0
  • Dergi Adı: Clinical Oral Investigations
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Bruxism, Glass hybrid restorative system, Nano-ceramic composite resin, Non-carious cervical lesions
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: To compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid (GH) restorative and a nano-ceramic composite resin (CR) in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of bruxist individuals in a 60-month randomized clinical trial. Materials and methods: Twenty-five bruxist candidates having NCCLs were recruited in this clinical study. The depth, height (cervico–incisal), width (mesio-distal), internal angles of the NCCLs, degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival index (GI) were measured. One hundred-and-forty-eight NCCLs were restored either with a GH restorative (Equia Forte Fil) or a CR (Ceram.X One Universal). Modified USPHS criteria was used to evaluate restorations after 1 week and 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. Pearson’s Chi-Square, Fisher’s Exact and Cochran Q tests were run for analysis. Survival rates of the restorations were compared with Kaplan–Meier analysis (p < 0.05). Results: After 60 months, 97 restorations in 15 patients were examined. The recall rate was 60.0%. Retention rates were 73.5% for CR and 66.7% for GH. A total of 29 restorations were lost (13CR (26.5%), 16GH (33.3%)). There was not a significant difference between tested restoratives in retention (p = 0.464), marginal adaptation (p = 0.856) and marginal discoloration (p = 0.273). There was no relationship between internal angle, depth, height or width and retention of the GH or CR restorations (p > 0.05). The increase in retention loss and marginal discoloration of both restorations over time were significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity or secondary caries were not detected after 60 months. Conclusion: GH and nano-ceramic CR showed similar clinical performances in NCCLs after 60 months in patients with bruxism. Clinical significance: After 60 months, CR and GH materials showed clinically acceptable performances in restoration of NCCLs in patients with bruxism.