Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.
Bruxism
Glass hybrid restorative system
Nano-ceramic composite resin
Non-carious cervical lesions
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Mar 2024
09 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
11
05
2023
accepted:
20
02
2024
medline:
11
3
2024
pubmed:
9
3
2024
entrez:
8
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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. GH and nano-ceramic CR showed similar clinical performances in NCCLs after 60 months in patients with bruxism. After 60 months, CR and GH materials showed clinically acceptable performances in restoration of NCCLs in patients with bruxism.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38459231
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05570-0
pii: 10.1007/s00784-024-05570-0
pmc: PMC10924002
doi:
Substances chimiques
Composite Resins
0
Resin Cements
0
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
207Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
de Baat C, Verhoeff M, Ahlberg J, Manfredini D, Winocur E, Zweers P et al (2021) Medications and addictive substances potentially inducing or attenuating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism. J Oral Rehabil 48(3):343–354
pubmed: 32716523
doi: 10.1111/joor.13061
Oliveira MTD, Bittencourt ST, Marcon K, Destro S, Pereira JR (2015) Sleep bruxism and anxiety level in children. Braz Oral Res 29:1–5
pubmed: 26313346
Lerardo G, Mazur M, Luzzi V, Calcagnile F, Ottolenghi L, Polimeni A (2021) Treatments of sleep bruxism in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. CRANIO® 39(1):58–64
doi: 10.1080/08869634.2019.1581470
Polmann H, Domingos FL, Melo G, Stuginski-Barbosa J, Guerra ENdS, Porporatti AL et al (2019) Association between sleep bruxism and anxiety symptoms in adults: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 46(5):482–91
pubmed: 30805947
doi: 10.1111/joor.12785
Goldstein RE, Clark WA (2017) The clinical management of awake bruxism. J Am Dent Assoc 148(6):387–391
pubmed: 28550845
doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.03.005
Guaita M, Högl B (2016) Current treatments of bruxism. Curr Treat Options Neurol 18(2):1–15
doi: 10.1007/s11940-016-0396-3
Lavigne G, Khoury S, Abe S, Yamaguchi T, Raphael K (2008) Bruxism physiology and pathology: an overview for clinicians. J Oral Rehabil 35(7):476–494
pubmed: 18557915
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01881.x
Walter C, Kress E, Götz H, Taylor K, Willershausen I, Zampelis A (2014) The anatomy of non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Invest 18(1):139–146
doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-0960-0
Pikdöken L, Akca E, Gürbüzer B, Aydil B, Taşdelen B (2011) Cervical wear and occlusal wear from a periodontal perspective. J Oral Rehabil 38(2):95–100
pubmed: 20678102
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02137.x
Nascimento BL, Vieira AR, Bezamat M, Ignacio SA, Souza EM (2022) Occlusal problems, mental health issues and non-carious cervical lesions. Odontology 110(2):349–355
pubmed: 34568988
doi: 10.1007/s10266-021-00658-5
Miranda JS, de PinhoBarcellos AS, de Souza Oliveira A, Paradella TC, Kimpara ET, Chaves MDGAM (2017) Are non-carious cervical lesions more frequent in sleep bruxism patients? Braz Dental Sci 20(4):49–54
doi: 10.14295/bds.2017.v20i4.1445
Telles D, Pegoraro LF, Pereira JC (2000) Prevalence of noncarious cervical lesions and their relation to occlusal aspects: a clinical study. J Esthet Dent 12(1):10–15
pubmed: 11323828
doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2000.tb00193.x
Pallesen U, van Dijken JW (2015) A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Dent Mater 31(10):1232–1244
pubmed: 26321155
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.08.146
van Dijken JW, Lindberg A (2015) A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite. Dent Mater 31(9):1150–1158
pubmed: 26205382
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.06.012
Bartlett D, Sundaram G (2006) An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodont 19(6):613–617
pubmed: 17165303
Gonçalves DFM, Shinohara MS, Carvalho PRMdA, Ramos FdS, Oliveira LdC, Omoto ÉM et al (2021) Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 29:e20210192
pubmed: 34705986
pmcid: 8523123
doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2021-0192
Sabatini C, Campillo M, Hoelz S, Davis E, Munoz C (2012) Cross-compatibility of methacrylate-based resin composites and etch-and-rinse one-bottle adhesives. Oper Dent 37(1):37–44
pubmed: 21913863
doi: 10.2341/11-095-L
Alzraikat H, Burrow M, Maghaireh G, Taha N (2018) Nanofilled resin composite properties and clinical performance: a review. Oper Dent 43(4):E173–E190
pubmed: 29570020
doi: 10.2341/17-208-T
Bezerra IM, Brito ACM, de Sousa SA, Santiago BM, Cavalcanti YW, de Almeida LDFD (2020) Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon 6(5):e03969
pubmed: 32462087
pmcid: 7243139
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969
Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K (2019) A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci 27:e20180678
pubmed: 31596369
pmcid: 6768121
doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678
Fuhrmann D, Murchison D, Whipple S, Vandewalle K (2020) Properties of new glass-ionomer restorative systems marketed for stress-bearing areas. Oper Dent 45(1):104–110
pubmed: 31567055
doi: 10.2341/18-176-L
Kutuk Z, Ozturk C, Cakir F, Gurgan S (2019) Mechanical performance of a newly developed glass hybrid restorative in the restoration of large MO Class 2 cavities. Niger J Clin Pract 22(6):833
pubmed: 31187770
doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_628_18
Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN (2003) An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 134(10):1382–1390
pubmed: 14620019
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054
Khan SIR, Rao D, Ramachandran A, Ashok BV, Alfadley A (2020) Influence of neuroticism on the prognosis of nanoceramic and microhybrid composite restoration: A comparative 1-year clinical study. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dent 10(5):613
doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_274_20
Greene JG, Vermillion JR (1964) The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc 68(1):7–13
pubmed: 14076341
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1964.0034
Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Raphael KG, Wetselaar P, Glaros AG, Kato T et al (2018) International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: Report of a work in progress. J Oral Rehabil 45(11):837–844
pubmed: 29926505
pmcid: 6287494
doi: 10.1111/joor.12663
Ismail AI, Tellez M, Pitts NB, Ekstrand KR, Ricketts D, Longbottom C et al (2013) Caries management pathways preserve dental tissues and promote oral health. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 41(1):e12-40
doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12024
Ormond C, Douglas G, Pitts N (2010) The use of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) in a National Health Service general dental practice as part of an oral health assessment. Prim Dent Care 17(4):153–159
pubmed: 20887668
doi: 10.1308/135576110792936177
Koyano K, Tsukiyama Y, Ichiki R, Kuwata T (2008) Assessment of bruxism in the clinic. J Oral Rehabil 35(7):495–508
pubmed: 18557916
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01880.x
American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2005) International classification of sleep disorders. Diagnostic and Coding Manual. pp 148–152
Kanathila H, Pangi A, Poojary B, Doddamani M (2018) Diagnosis and treatment of bruxism: Concepts from past to present. Int J Appl Dent Sci 4(1):290–295
Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH, Higashi C, Queiroz VA, Rego RO et al (2015) Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients’ preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 40(6):581–593
pubmed: 26158415
doi: 10.2341/14-089-C
Smith BG, Knight JK (1984) An index for measuring the wear of teeth. Br Dent J 156(12):435–438
pubmed: 6590081
doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4805394
Loe H (1997) The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol 38(6 Suppl):610–6
KocVural U, Meral E, Ergin E, Gurgan S (2020) Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 24(3):1229–1238
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02986-x
Loguercio AD, Raffo J, Bassani F, Balestrini H, Santo D, Do Amaral RC et al (2011) 24-month clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive applied using a rubbing motion. Clin Oral Invest 15(4):589–596
doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0408-8
Tomasik M (2006) Analysis of etiological factors involved in noncarious cervical lesions. Ann Acad Med Stetin 52(3):125–136
pubmed: 17385359
Bezerra IM, Brito ACM, de Sousa SA, Santiago BM, Cavalcanti YW, de Almeida LFD (2020) Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon 6(5):e03969
pubmed: 32462087
pmcid: 7243139
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969
Kwong SM, Cheung GS, Kei LH, Itthagarun A, Smales RJ, Tay FR et al (2002) Micro-tensile bond strengths to sclerotic dentin using a self-etching and a total-etching technique. Dent Mater 18(5):359–369
pubmed: 12175574
doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00051-3
Xie C, Han Y, Zhao XY, Wang ZY, He HM (2010) Microtensile bond strength of one- and two-step self-etching adhesives on sclerotic dentin: the effects of thermocycling. Oper Dent 35(5):547–555
pubmed: 20945746
doi: 10.2341/10-025-L
Goodacre CJ, Eugene Roberts W, Munoz CA (2023) Noncarious cervical lesions: Morphology and progression, prevalence, etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical guidelines for restoration. J Prosthodont 32(2):e1–e18
pubmed: 35920595
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13585
Boing TF, de Geus JL, Wambier LM, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Gomes OMM (2018) Are Glass-Ionomer cement restorations in cervical lesions more long-lasting than resin-based composite resins? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 20(5):435–452
pubmed: 30349908
Celik EU, Tunac AT, Yilmaz F (2019) Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 23(3):1473–1480
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2575-y
Vaid DS, Shah NC, Bilgi PS (2015) One year comparative clinical evaluation of EQUIA with resin-modified glass ionomer and a nanohybrid composite in noncarious cervical lesions. J Conserv Dent 18(6):449–452
pubmed: 26752837
pmcid: 4693316
doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.168805
Schwendicke F, Muller A, Seifert T, Jeggle-Engbert LM, Paris S, Gostemeyer G (2021) Glass hybrid versus composite for non-carious cervical lesions: Survival, restoration quality and costs in randomized controlled trial after 3 years. J Dent 110:103689
pubmed: 33979577
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103689
Santos MJ, Ari N, Steele S, Costella J, Banting D (2014) Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesions–a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 18(5):1369–1381
pubmed: 24671713
doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1220-7
Celik EU, Tunac AT, Yilmaz F (2019) Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 23(3):1473–1480
pubmed: 30120605
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2575-y
Schwendicke F, Basso M, Markovic D, Turkun LS, Miletic I (2021) Long-term cost-effectiveness of glass hybrid versus composite in permanent molars. J Dent 112:103751
pubmed: 34298114
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103751
Schwendicke F, Rossi JG, Krois J, Basso M, Peric T, Turkun LS et al (2021) Cost-effectiveness of glass hybrid versus composite in a multi-country randomized trial. J Dent 107:103614
pubmed: 33617942
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103614
Manarte-Monteiro P, Domingues J, Teixeira L, Gavinha S, Manso MC (2021) Universal adhesives and adhesion modes in non-carious cervical restorations: 2-year randomised clinical trial. Polymers (Basel) 14(1):33
pubmed: 35012056
doi: 10.3390/polym14010033
Oz FD, Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Soleimani R, Gurgan S (2019) An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 23(3):1443–1452
pubmed: 30109443
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2571-2
Oz FD, Ergin E, Canatan S (2019) Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL - a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 27:e20180358
pubmed: 30994773
pmcid: 6459227
doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0358
Francisconi LF, Scaffa PM, de Barros VR, Coutinho M, Francisconi PA (2009) Glass ionomer cements and their role in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. J Appl Oral Sci 17(5):364–369
pubmed: 19936509
pmcid: 4327657
doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572009000500003
Da Costa TR, Loguercio AD, Reis A (2013) Effect of enamel bevel on the clinical performance of resin composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions. J Esthet Restor Dent 25(5):346–356
pubmed: 24148985
doi: 10.1111/jerd.12042
Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Anauate-Netto C, Amore R, Lewgoy HR, Cordeiro HJ et al (2005) Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months. Am J Dent 18(2):135–140
pubmed: 15973834
EliguzelogluDalkilic E, Omurlu H (2012) Two-year clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. J Appl Oral Sci 20(2):192–199
doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572012000200012
van Dijken JW (2010) A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch-and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 26(9):940–946
pubmed: 20646753
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.05.009
Mahn E, Rousson V, Heintze S (2015) Meta-analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations. J Adhes Dent 17(5):391–403
pubmed: 26525003
Haak R, Hahnel M, Schneider H, Rosolowski M, Park KJ, Ziebolz D et al (2019) Clinical and OCT outcomes of a universal adhesive in a randomized clinical trial after 12 months. J Dent 90:103200
pubmed: 31562889
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103200
Manarte-Monteiro P, Domingues J, Teixeira L, Gavinha S, Manso MC (2019) Multi-mode adhesives performance and success/retention rates in NCCLs restorations: randomised clinical trial one-year report. Biomater Investig Dent 6(1):43–53
pubmed: 31998871
pmcid: 6964776
Franco EB, Benetti AR, Ishikiriama SK, Santiago SL, Lauris JRP, Jorge MFF et al (2006) 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 31(4):403–408
pubmed: 16924979
doi: 10.2341/05-87
Hussainy SN, Nasim I, Thomas T, Ranjan M (2018) Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions: One-year follow-up. J Conserv Dent: JCD 21(5):510
pubmed: 30294112
pmcid: 6161514
doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_51_18
de Oliveira FG, Machado LS, Rocha EP, de Alexandre RS, Briso ALF, Mazza M et al (2012) Clinical evaluation of a composite resin and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions: one-year results. IJCD 5:1–11
Loguercio A, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa A, Higashi C, Queiroz VO, Rego R et al (2015) Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients’ preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 40(6):581–593
pubmed: 26158415
doi: 10.2341/14-089-C
Özgünaltay G, Önen A (2002) Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass–ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions. J Oral Rehabil 29(11):1037–1041
pubmed: 12453256
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00995.x
KocVural U, Gökalp S, Kiremitci A (2016) Clinical performance of composite restorations with resin-modified glass ionomer lining in root surface carious lesions. Oper Dent 41(3):268–275
doi: 10.2341/15-205-C