| Autor: |
Göstemeyer, Gerd, Seifert, Tilmann, Jeggle-Engbert, Linda-Maria, Paris, Sebastian, Schwendicke, Falk |
| Zdroj: |
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry; 2021, Vol. 23 Issue 6, p487-496, 10p |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: To compare the clinical performance and treatment times between glass hybrid (GH; EQUIA Forte Fil/EQUIA Forte Coat, GC) and adhesive/nanofilled resin composite restorations (RC; OptiBond FL, Kerr/Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Oral Care) of sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions (sNCCL). Materials and Methods: This is an 18-month interim analysis of a 36-month cluster-randomized trial (ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT02631161). Eighty-eight patients (50-70 years) with 175 sNCCLs were randomized to receive GH or RC restorations. Restorations were placed without mechanical cavity preparation, and treatment time was recorded. After 18 months, restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria. Factors associated with restoration survival were evaluated using multi-level Cox-regression analysis. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used to analyze factors associated with treatment time. Results: After a mean of 18 months (min/max: 8/25), 78 patients (160 restorations) were assessed. Fifteen restorations (18%) failed in GH, and 11 (12%) in the RC, without a significant difference in survival (p = 0.904/Cox). Retention loss was the most common reason for failure in both groups. Restorations placed in older patients showed lower risk of failure [OR (95% CI): 0.90 (0.81-0.99) per year], while mandibular teeth showed higher risks [2.89 (1.00-8.31)]. Treatment time was significantly shorter for GH (mean ± SD: 8.6 ± 4.3 min) than RC (11.7 ± 5.7 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: GH may be a suitable alternative to RC for restoring sNCCLs, without any significant difference in survival between the two materials at this interim analysis. In addition, placing GH restorations required less chairtime than did placing RC restorations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
