Journal of dentistry · 2026
Two-year clinical comparison of direct and indirect composite restorations in severely damaged molars: A split-mouth randomized clinical study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Belleflamme Marcia, Seidel Laurence, Albert Adelin, Bolette Amandine, Guéders Audrey
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This randomized, split-mouth clinical study compared the clinical performance of direct restorations using a short fiber-reinforced composite veneered with a microhybrid composite and indirect CAD-CAM restorations fabricated from a hybrid CAD-CAM block in severely damaged molars.
METHODS: One hundred restorations in 42 patients-50 direct short fiber-reinforced composite restorations veneered with a microhybrid composite and 50 indirect CAD-CAM nanoceramic composite restorations-were randomly assigned to severely damaged molars in a split-mouth design; all restorations involved reconstruction of at least one cusp. All restorations were performed by a single qualified operator, and two independent calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. Patient satisfaction was also assessed at each evaluation.
RESULTS: After two years of follow-up, all restorations remained functional, resulting in a 100% survival rate. One indirect restoration experienced debonding one week after placement, which was successfully re-bonded and showed no further complications during follow-up. Both restorative approaches demonstrated excellent clinical performance across all USPHS criteria, with no significant differences between direct and indirect composite restorations.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct and indirect restorations showed high survival and success rates after 2 years. Patient satisfaction was high, with no significant difference between the two restorative approaches.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: At the 2-year follow-up, direct restorations based on short fiber-reinforced composite showed clinical results comparable to those of indirect CAD-CAM composite restorations in severely damaged molars.
METHODS: One hundred restorations in 42 patients-50 direct short fiber-reinforced composite restorations veneered with a microhybrid composite and 50 indirect CAD-CAM nanoceramic composite restorations-were randomly assigned to severely damaged molars in a split-mouth design; all restorations involved reconstruction of at least one cusp. All restorations were performed by a single qualified operator, and two independent calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. Patient satisfaction was also assessed at each evaluation.
RESULTS: After two years of follow-up, all restorations remained functional, resulting in a 100% survival rate. One indirect restoration experienced debonding one week after placement, which was successfully re-bonded and showed no further complications during follow-up. Both restorative approaches demonstrated excellent clinical performance across all USPHS criteria, with no significant differences between direct and indirect composite restorations.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct and indirect restorations showed high survival and success rates after 2 years. Patient satisfaction was high, with no significant difference between the two restorative approaches.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: At the 2-year follow-up, direct restorations based on short fiber-reinforced composite showed clinical results comparable to those of indirect CAD-CAM composite restorations in severely damaged molars.