IADR Abstract Archives
A Ten-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Composite Restorations
Objectives: To assess the clinical efficacy of posterior composite resin restorations placed directly and indirectly in posterior teeth after 10 years.
Methods: One hundred eight cavities in 54 patients were restored with three direct composite resins (Filtek SupremeXT(FSXT), Tetric Evo Ceram(TEC), Aelite Esthetic (AE)) and two indirect composite resins (Estenia(E) and Tescera ATL(TATL). All restorations were evaluated by two examiners using the USPHS criteria, at baseline and 10 years after placement. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar Chi-square tests.
Results: At baseline, the number of teeth restored was reduced by 12%(13 teeth) due to inaccessibility to patients or loss of teeth. Charlie score was recorded in all restorative systems in the 10-year evaluation of our study, which did not have a Charlie score in its 5-year evaluation. Only missing teeth made up the Charlie rating. Evaluations of all remaining restorations were recorded with Alpha and Bravo scoring. At the end of 10 years, Bravo scores were recorded for color match in all restorations. All evaluations of the remaining restorations in the TEC group, except the color match, were recorded with an Alpha score of 95%. Post-operative sensitivity was maintained with an Alpha score of 95% only in the TEC and AA groups. In terms of gingival adaptation and secondary caries, the remaining restorations in all groups except the TATL group were recorded with Alpha grading only. Surface texture, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and retention were recorded with Bravo scores at different percentages at the end of 10 years for all groups(except TEC).
Conclusions: In the study, which was examined according to USPHS criteria, no statistically significant difference was found between direct and indirect composite resin restorations over a 10-year period. Restorations made in the light of the information obtained were clinically successful in the medium and long term.
Methods: One hundred eight cavities in 54 patients were restored with three direct composite resins (Filtek SupremeXT(FSXT), Tetric Evo Ceram(TEC), Aelite Esthetic (AE)) and two indirect composite resins (Estenia(E) and Tescera ATL(TATL). All restorations were evaluated by two examiners using the USPHS criteria, at baseline and 10 years after placement. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar Chi-square tests.
Results: At baseline, the number of teeth restored was reduced by 12%(13 teeth) due to inaccessibility to patients or loss of teeth. Charlie score was recorded in all restorative systems in the 10-year evaluation of our study, which did not have a Charlie score in its 5-year evaluation. Only missing teeth made up the Charlie rating. Evaluations of all remaining restorations were recorded with Alpha and Bravo scoring. At the end of 10 years, Bravo scores were recorded for color match in all restorations. All evaluations of the remaining restorations in the TEC group, except the color match, were recorded with an Alpha score of 95%. Post-operative sensitivity was maintained with an Alpha score of 95% only in the TEC and AA groups. In terms of gingival adaptation and secondary caries, the remaining restorations in all groups except the TATL group were recorded with Alpha grading only. Surface texture, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and retention were recorded with Bravo scores at different percentages at the end of 10 years for all groups(except TEC).
Conclusions: In the study, which was examined according to USPHS criteria, no statistically significant difference was found between direct and indirect composite resin restorations over a 10-year period. Restorations made in the light of the information obtained were clinically successful in the medium and long term.