MedElevator
Войти в исследования Clinical oral investigations · 2026
One-year clinical performance of polyethylene fiber-reinforced direct composite restorations in endodontically treated posterior teeth.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kozakoğlu Furkan, Gürses Merve
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the 1-year clinical performance of polyethylene fiber-reinforced direct composite restorations placed in different orientations in endodontically treated premolars and molars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-five patients with 90 endodontically treated posterior teeth (32 premolars, 58 molars) received direct composite restorations using Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Japan), G-aenial Universal Injectable and G-aenial A'CHORD (GC Corp., Japan), and polyethylene fiber (Ribbond, Ribbond Inc., USA). According to cavity configuration, fibers were placed in circumferential (O), mesiodistal (MD), or buccolingual (BL) orientations. Clinical performance was assessed using modified USPHS criteria at 7 days, 6 months, and 12 months.
RESULTS: All restorations maintained Alpha scores for color match and secondary caries throughout the study period. At 12 months, limited Bravo scores were observed for retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and surface texture. One restoration in the MD group received a Charlie score for retention and required replacement. No statistically significant differences were detected among the three fiber-orientation groups for any evaluated parameter (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylene fiber-reinforced direct composite restorations demonstrated favorable short-term clinical performance in endodontically treated posterior teeth. Fiber orientation did not significantly influence clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-five patients with 90 endodontically treated posterior teeth (32 premolars, 58 molars) received direct composite restorations using Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Japan), G-aenial Universal Injectable and G-aenial A'CHORD (GC Corp., Japan), and polyethylene fiber (Ribbond, Ribbond Inc., USA). According to cavity configuration, fibers were placed in circumferential (O), mesiodistal (MD), or buccolingual (BL) orientations. Clinical performance was assessed using modified USPHS criteria at 7 days, 6 months, and 12 months.
RESULTS: All restorations maintained Alpha scores for color match and secondary caries throughout the study period. At 12 months, limited Bravo scores were observed for retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and surface texture. One restoration in the MD group received a Charlie score for retention and required replacement. No statistically significant differences were detected among the three fiber-orientation groups for any evaluated parameter (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylene fiber-reinforced direct composite restorations demonstrated favorable short-term clinical performance in endodontically treated posterior teeth. Fiber orientation did not significantly influence clinical outcomes.