Journal of dentistry · 2015
Clinical survival of indirect, anterior 3-unit surface-retained fibre-reinforced composite fixed dental prosthesis: Up to 7.5-years follow-up.
Clinical StudyСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kumbuloglu Ovul, Özcan Mutlu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This prospective clinical study evaluated the performance of indirect, anterior, surface-retained, fibre-reinforced-composite restorations (ISFRCR).
METHODS: Between June-2003 and January-2011, a total of 134 patients (83 females, 51 males, 16-68 years old) received 175 ISFRCRs (local ethical registration number: 14/9/4). All restorations were made indirectly on a plaster model using unidirectional E-glass fibres (everStick C&B, StickTech) in combination with a laboratory resin composite (Dialogue, Schütz Dental) and cemented according to the instructions of 4 resin cements [(RelyX ARC, 3M-ESPE, n=61), Bifix DC, VOCO, n=45), Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent, n=32) and Multilink (Ivoclar Vivadent, n=37)]. After baseline recordings, patients were followed at 6 months and thereafter annually up to 7.5 years. The evaluation protocol involved technical (chipping, debonding or fracture of tooth/restoration) and biological failures (caries).
RESULTS: Mean observation period was 58 months. Altogether, 13 failures were observed [survival rate: 97.7%] (Kaplan-Meier). One catastrophic fracture [(cement: RelyX ARC), eight partial debonding (cement: Bifix DC (5), Multilink (1), RelyX ARC (1), Variolink II (1)] and four delaminations of veneering composite [(cement: Bifix DC (2), RelyX ARC (1), Multilink (1)] were observed. Except one replacement, all defective restorations were repaired or recemented. Annual failure rate of ISFRCRs was 1.73%. The survival rates with the four resin cements did not show significant differences (RelyX ARC: 98.3%; Bifix DC: 93.5%; Variolink 2: 100%; Multilink: 100%) (p=0.114). Secondary caries did not occur in any of the teeth.
CONCLUSION: The 3-unit anterior indirect surface-retained resin-bonded FRC FDPs showed similar clinical survival rate when cemented with the resin cements tested. Experienced failures in general were due to debonding of the restoration or delamination of the veneering composite.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3-unit surface retained resin-bonded FRC FDPs could be considered minimal invasive and cost-effective alternatives to conventional tooth- or implant-borne FDPs. Failures were mainly repairable in the form of chipping or debonding depending on the resin cement type.
METHODS: Between June-2003 and January-2011, a total of 134 patients (83 females, 51 males, 16-68 years old) received 175 ISFRCRs (local ethical registration number: 14/9/4). All restorations were made indirectly on a plaster model using unidirectional E-glass fibres (everStick C&B, StickTech) in combination with a laboratory resin composite (Dialogue, Schütz Dental) and cemented according to the instructions of 4 resin cements [(RelyX ARC, 3M-ESPE, n=61), Bifix DC, VOCO, n=45), Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent, n=32) and Multilink (Ivoclar Vivadent, n=37)]. After baseline recordings, patients were followed at 6 months and thereafter annually up to 7.5 years. The evaluation protocol involved technical (chipping, debonding or fracture of tooth/restoration) and biological failures (caries).
RESULTS: Mean observation period was 58 months. Altogether, 13 failures were observed [survival rate: 97.7%] (Kaplan-Meier). One catastrophic fracture [(cement: RelyX ARC), eight partial debonding (cement: Bifix DC (5), Multilink (1), RelyX ARC (1), Variolink II (1)] and four delaminations of veneering composite [(cement: Bifix DC (2), RelyX ARC (1), Multilink (1)] were observed. Except one replacement, all defective restorations were repaired or recemented. Annual failure rate of ISFRCRs was 1.73%. The survival rates with the four resin cements did not show significant differences (RelyX ARC: 98.3%; Bifix DC: 93.5%; Variolink 2: 100%; Multilink: 100%) (p=0.114). Secondary caries did not occur in any of the teeth.
CONCLUSION: The 3-unit anterior indirect surface-retained resin-bonded FRC FDPs showed similar clinical survival rate when cemented with the resin cements tested. Experienced failures in general were due to debonding of the restoration or delamination of the veneering composite.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3-unit surface retained resin-bonded FRC FDPs could be considered minimal invasive and cost-effective alternatives to conventional tooth- or implant-borne FDPs. Failures were mainly repairable in the form of chipping or debonding depending on the resin cement type.