Duygu RECEN, Banu ÖNAL, L. Sebnem TURKUN

Direkt ve indirekt yöntemle yapılan kompozit rezin laminate veneer restorasyonların klinik değerlendirilmesi: 1 yıllık kontrol

GİRİŞ ve AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı tekniklerle uygulanan kompozit rezin laminate veneer (RLV) restorasyonların bir yıllık klinik performansını değerlendirmektir. YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: İlk 15 diş, Esthet•X HD (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Almanya) ile indirekt kompozit RLV restorasyonlarla; sonraki 15 diş Ceram•X Duo (Dentsply DeTrey) ile direkt kompozit RLV restorasyonlarla restore edildi. Başlangıç, 6 ve 12 ayda restorasyonlar modifiye Ryge kriterleri, cep derinliği, plak indeksi ve diş eti indeksi kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Klinik kriterlerin değerlendirilmesinde Mann Whitney U testi kullanıldı. Cep derinliği ölçümleri için Friedman testi kullanıldı. Plak ve diş eti indeksindeki farklılıklar Fisher’in kesin testi ve Oran karşılaştırmaları testi ile analiz edildi. BULGULAR: Mann Whitney U testi sonucunda, gruplar arasında sadece kenar renklenmesi kriterinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu (p≤0.05). İndirekt grupta 6. ay kontrolünde cep derinliği ve gingival indeks skorları arttı, bu artış istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu (p≤0.05). Bu kriterlere göre direkt tekniğin indirekt teknikten istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ölçüde daha iyi olduğu tespit edildi (p≤0.05). TARTIŞMA ve SONUÇ: Bu çalışmanın bulgularına dayanarak, her iki teknikle yapılmış kompozit RLV restorasyonlar anterior dişlerde estetik problemi olan hastalarda iyi birer tedavi seçeneği olabilir. Ancak erken dönem kenar renklenmesi, preparasyon, ölçü ve yapıştırma aşamasındaki zorluklar indirekt tekniğin dezavantajları olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

Clinical evaluation of direct and indirect resin composite veneer restorations: 1 year report

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate one year clinical performance of composite veneers applied with different techniques. METHODS: The first 15 teeth were restored with an indirect technique with Esthet•X HD (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), the next 15 teeth were restored with a direct approach with Ceram•X duo (Dentsply DeTrey). At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the restorations were evaluated using modified Ryge criteria, pocket depth, plaque index and gingival index. Mann Whitney U test was used in evaluating clinical criteria. Friedman test was used for pocket depth measures. Differences in plaque and gingival index were analysed by Fisher’s exact test and Proportions test. RESULTS: Regarding Mann Whitney U test, only the marginal discoloration criteria was statistically significantly different between the groups (p≤0.05). In the indirect group, the pocket depth and gingival index scores were increased at 6 month recall and these increases were statistically significant (p≤0.05). Direct technique was found to be statistically significantly better than the indirect technique (p≤0.05). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, both composite veneer techniques may be a good treatment option for patients with esthetic problems in anterior teeth. However, early discoloration rate, complex approach with preparation, impression and luting are the disadvantages for indirect technique.

PDF

___

Albuquerque PP, Moreno MBP, Nishida AC, Rodrigues E, Kiyohara C, Francci CE. Prefabricated resin veneer: A case report of a simplified restorative technique. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12:140-145.
Walls AWG, Steele JG, Wassell RW. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: porcelain laminate veneers. Br Dent J. 2002;193:73-82.
Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M. Randomized clinical trial of indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers: up to 3-year follow-up. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15:181-190.
Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M. Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites. J Dent. 2012;40:766-775.
Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M. Porcelain laminate veneers: 6- to 12-year clinical evaluation- -a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25:9-17.
De Araújo AO, Manta DF, Lopes MJP, Pedrosa MS, da Silva CHV, Durão MA. Prefabricated composite resin veneers: a clinical case report. Braz Dent Sci. 2018;21:119-125.
Reis GR, Vilela ALR, Silva FP, Borges MG, Santos-Filho PC, Menezes MS. Minimally Invasive Approach In Esthetic Dentistry : Composite Resin Versus Ceramics Veneers. Bio sci. J. 2017;33:238- 246.
Korkut B, Yanıkoğlu F, Günday M. Direct composite laminate veneers: three case reports. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013;7:105- 111.
Keyf PF, Uzun PG, Altunsoy S. Diş Hekimliğinde Renk Seçimi Choice of Color in Dentistry. Hacettepe Diş hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009;33:52-58.
Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH et al. Influence of Isolation Method of the Operative Field on Gingival Damage, Patients’ Preference, and Restoration Retention in Noncarious Cervical Lesions. Oper Dent. 2015;40:581-593.
Peumans M, Meerbeek B Van, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers : a review of the literature. 2000;28:163-177.
Lopes GC, Thys DG, Klaus P, Oliveira GM, Widmer N. Enamel acid etching: a review. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007;28:18-24.
Pena CE, Rodrigues JA, Ely C, Giannini M, Reis AF. Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial of Selfetching Adhesives and Selective Enamel Etching. Oper Dent. 2016;41:249-257.
Calamia JR, Calamia CS. Porcelain Laminate Veneers: Reasons for 25 Years of Success. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51:399-417.
Demirci M. Tuncer S. Öztaş E, Tekçe N. Uysal Ö. A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:2187–2199.
Østervemb N, Jørgensen JN, Hørsted-Bindslev P. A new approach to compare the esthetic properties of different composite materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2011;23:238-246.
Da Silva JM,da Rocha DM,Travassos AC,Fernandes VV Jr, Rodrigues JR. Effect of different finishing times on surface roughness and maintenance of polish in nanoparticle and microhybrid composite resins. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2010;5:288-298.
Paravina RD, Roeder L, Lu H, Vogel K, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of resin-based composites. Am J Dent. 2004;17:262-266.
Lu H, Roeder LB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15:297-303.
Joniot S, Salomon JP, Dejou J, Grégoire G. Use of two surface analyzers to evaluate the surface roughness of four esthetic restorative materials after polishing. Oper Dent. 2006;31:39- 46.
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.
Lempel E, Lovász BV, Meszarics R, Jeges S, Tóth Á, Szalma J. Direct resin composite restorations for fractured maxillary teeth and diastema closure: A7years retrospectiveevaluationofsurvivaland influencing factors. Dent Mater. 2017;33:467-476.
Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacidmodified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14:217-222.
Soares GP, Silva GG, Ambrosano GM et al. Effect of polymerization mode and time of adhesive system on microleakage in composite resin restorations. J Investig Clin Dent. 2014;5:289-294.
Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21:1150-1157.
Soares GP, Ambrosano GM, Lima DA et al. Effect of light polymerization time, mode, and thermal and mechanical load cycling on microleakage in resin composite restorations. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29:545-550.
Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: A systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater. 2005;21:864-881.
Sampaio CS, Barbosa JM, Cáceres E et al. Volumetric shrinkage and film thickness of cementation materials for veneers: An in vitro 3D microcomputed tomography analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:784-791.
Gresnigt MMM, Özcan M, Carvalho M et al. Effect of luting agent on the load to failure and accelerated-fatigue resistance of lithium disilicate laminate veneers. Dent Mater. 2017;33:1392-1401.
Özcan M, Mese A. Adhesion of conventional and simplified resin-based luting cements to superficial and deep dentin. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:1081- 1088.
Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2006;31:11-17.
Bijelic-Donova J, Garoushi S, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Oxygen inhibition layer of composite resins: Effects of layer thickness and surface layer treatment on the interlayer bond strength. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015;123:53-60.
Manabe A, Kato Y, Finger WJ, Kanehira M, Komatsu M. Discoloration of coating resins exposed to staining solutions in vitro. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:338-343.
Wilson N, Lynch CD, Brunton PA et al. Criteria for the Replacement of Restorations: Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section. Oper Dent. 2016;41:48-57.
Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005;21:9-20.