Tuğba Toz AKALIN, Mahmut KUŞDEMİR, HARİKA GÖZDE GÖZÜKARA BAĞ, Mutlu ÖZCAN

Nanofil rezin kompozitlerle restore edilmiş 107 anterior dişin klinik olarak değerlendirilmesi: 32 aylık takip

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, nanofil bir rezin kompozitin klinik performansının sınıf 3 ve sınıf 4 kavitelere yapılan restorasyonlar ile değerlendirilmesidir.Gereç ve Yöntem: 107 adet sınıf 3 ve sınıf 4 restorasyon nanofil rezin kompozit ile re-store edildi ve daha sonra modifiye USPHS/FDI kriterleri ile değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar McNemar ve Marjinal Homojenite ve Kaplan-Meier testleri ile analiz edildi.Bulgular: 14 adet restorasyonda başarısızlık tespitiyle birlikte %86,8 lik bir restorasyon başarı oranı yakalandı. Nanofil rezin kompozitin 32 aylık periyotta kabul edilebilir bir klin-ik başarı gösterdiği tespit edildi.Sonuç: 2 yıllık takip sonunda renk stabilitesi ve retansiyonun azaldığı belirlendi.

Clinical evaluation of 107 anterior teeth restored with direct nanofilled resin composite: up to 32 months

Aim: This study evaluated the clinical performance of a nanofill resin composite in Class III and IV cavities.Materials and Methods: One hundred and seven Class III and Class IV restorations were performed with a nanofill resin composite. Restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS/FDI criteria. The changes were analyzed using McNemar and Marginal Homogeneity and Kaplan-Meier tests.Results: Fourteen absolute failures were encountered resulting in a survival rate of 86.8% (Kaplan-Meier). Nanofill resin composite showed acceptable clinical performance up to 32 months of service.Conclusion: However color stability and retention decreased at the end of two year fol-low up instead of fractures.

PDF

___

1. de Carvalho LD, Machado RG, Lopes GC, de Andrada MC. Nanofilled composite restorations with different adhesives strategies: clinical cases. Case Rep Dent 2012: 969627.
2. Loguercio AD, Lorini E, Weiss RV, Tori AP, Picinatto CC, Ribeiro NR, Reis A A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in cl ass III restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 57-64 . 3. Pontons-Melo JC, Furuse AY, Mondelli J A direct composite resin stratification tech-nique for restoration of the smile. Quintessence Int 2011; 42: 205-211.
4. van der Veen HJ, Pilon HF, Henry PP Clinical performance of one microfilled and two hybrid anterior composite resins. Quintessence Int 1989; 20: 547-550.
5. Ferracane JL Resin composite--state of the art. Dental Mater 2011; 27: 29-38.
6. Can Say E, Yurdaguven H, Yaman BC, Ozer F. Surface roughness and morphology of resin composites polished with two-step polishing systems. Dent Materials J 2014; 33: 332-342.
7. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P.J Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007; 19: 265-273.
8. Prodan DA, Gasparik C, Mada DC, Miclauş V, Baciut M, Dudea D Influence of opacity on the color stability of a nanocomposite Clin Oral Invest 2015; 19: 867-875.
9. Geitel B, Kwiatkowski R, Zimmer S, Barthel CR, Roulet JF, Jahn KR Clinically con-trolled study on the quality of class III, IV and V composite restorations after two years. J Adhes Dent 2004; 6: 247-253.
10. van Dijken JW Longevity of new hybrid restorative 11. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12: 237-243.
12. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 2011; 27:955-963.
13. Lempel E, Toth A, Fabian T, Krajczar K, Szalma J Retrospective evaluation of poste-rior direct composite restorations: 10-Year findings. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 115-122.
14. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD FDI World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evalua-tion of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12: 259-272.
15. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Int Dent J 2007; 57: 300-302.
16. Frese C, Schiller P, Staehle HJ, Wolff D Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a 5-year follow-up. J Dent 2013; 41:979-985.
17. Baldissera RA, Correa MB, Schuch HS, Collares K, Nascimento GG, Jardim PS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF Are there universal restorative composites for ante-rior and posterior teeth? J Dent 2013; 41:1027-1035.
18. Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, Gaengler P, Lindberg A, Huysmans MC, van Dijken JW. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 943-949.
19. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87- 101.
20. Frankenberger R, Tay FR Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dental Mater 2005; 21: 397-412.
21. Ermis RB, Temel UB, Cellik EU, Kam O Clinical performance of a two-step self-etch adhesive with additional enamel etching in Class III cavities. Oper Dent 2010; 35: 147-155.
22. Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1214-1224.
23. Qvist V, Strom C 11-year assessment of Class-III resin restorations completed with two restorative procedures. Acta Odontol Scand 1993; 51: 253-262.
24. Hunter B Survival of dental restorations in young patients. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1985; 13: 285- 287.
25. Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restora-tions-a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 481-495.
26. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin com-posite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up. Clin Oral Invest 2010; 14: 217-222.
27. Lucarotti PS, Holder RL, Burke FJ Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): variation by type of restoration and re-intervention. J Dent 2005; 33: 805-815.
28. Spinas E Longevity of composite restorations of traumatically injured teeth. Am J Dent 2004; 17: 407-411.
29. Reusens, B, D'Hoore W & Vreven J In vivo comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid minifilled composite resin in Class III restorations: 2-year follow-up Clin Oral Invest 1999; 3: 62-69.
30. Närhi TO, Tanner J, Ostela I, Narva K, Nohrström T, Tirri T & Vallittu PK Anterior Z250 resin composite restorations: one-year evaluation of clinical performance. Clin Oral Invest 2003; 7: 241-243.
31. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P & Vanherle G The 5-year clinical per-formance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. I. Esthetic qualities. Clin Oral Invest 1997; 1: 12-18.
32. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P & Vanherle G The 5-year clinical per-formance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. II. Marginal qualities. Clin Oral Invest 1997; 1: 19-26.