A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques

Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To answer the PICO(S) question: Is there a difference in clinical longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations placed on permanent posterior teeth?

DATA

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth were considered.

SOURCES

Several electronic databases were searched, with no language or date restrictions. The revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB-2) was used to analyze the studies; meta-analyses were run and the certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE tool. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed for resin composite restorations placed on posterior worn dentition.

STUDY SELECTION

Twenty-three articles were included in qualitative synthesis, while 8 studies were used for meta-analyses. According to the RoB-2 tool, 5 studies were ranked as "low risk", 7 had "some concerns", while 11 papers were rated as "high risk" of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in short-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.54, 95% CI [0.72, 3.33]), medium-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.87, 95% CI [0.61, 5.72]) and long-term longevity (p = 0.86; RR=0.95, 95% CI [0.57, 1.59]). The choice of restorative technique had no influence on short-term survival of resin composite restorations placed on worn dentition (p = 0.13; RR=0.46, 95% CI [0.17, 1.25]). The certainty of evidence was rated as "very low".

CONCLUSIONS

Direct and indirect resin composite restorations may show similar clinical longevity in posterior region, regardless of the observation period or substrate (wear-affected and non-affected dentition). The very low quality of evidence suggests that more long-term RCTs are needed to confirm our results.

Patients´ satisfaction concerning direct anterior dental restoration

The objective of this study was to observe patients' satisfaction with their in-service direct anterior dental restorations and to compare it with clinical evaluation using FDI (Federation Dental International) criteria. Patients scored their own anterior dental restorations regarding satisfaction (satisfactory /dissatisfactory). If dissatisfaction was mentioned, then, they would be interviewed about the complaint. In the same session, the dental restorations were clinically evaluated by two dentists using FDI criteria (1-5 score) concerning esthetic, functional, and biological domains. Descriptive statistics were used for frequencies of scores attributed by patients and clinicians. In order to compare patients' to clinicians' frequencies, the Chi-square test was applied (p ≤ 0.05). A total of 106 restorations were evaluated by patients and clinicians. Patients reported 52.8% of restorations satisfactory and 47.8% dissatisfactory. Overall, clinicians reported the same restorations as 82,3% satisfactory and 17,6% dissatisfactory. Patients' most frequent complaints referred to color, followed by anatomical form, fracture of material and retention, and approximal anatomical form. Comparing patients' satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates to clinicians' evaluation per criteria, there was no difference regarding esthetics. The frequency of dissatisfactory restorations by clinicians was significantly lower when functional and biological properties were compared with patients' opinions. Direct anterior dental restorations were more frequently reported as satisfactory by patients and clinicians, being the main complaints related to esthetic issues. When clinicians and patients' evaluations were compared, it was observed that the frequencies of satisfactory restoration by patients and clinicians were similar regarding esthetic properties, and significantly different regarding functional and biological properties.

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing indirect versus direct composite restorations: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the clinical performance of large indirect restorations (IRs) versus direct restorations (DRs) in posterior teeth.

METHODS

Thirty subjects received two class II restorations (n = 60), one fabricated from a precured composite block (Grandio Blocs, VOCO) for the indirect technique (IT) and the other with light-cured composite (GrandioSO, VOCO) for the direct technique (DT). For IT, the restoration was created using the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturer (CAD/CAM) system. For DT, the material was applied light-cured by using a layering technique. All restorations were evaluated by using the World Dental Federation criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-three subjects attended the 2-year recall, and 46 restorations were evaluated. No significant differences were detected between the techniques for most parameters analyzed (p > 0.05). For "color match" at 7 days and 6 months, better results were observed for the DT. In relation to the overall scores, all restorations were esthetically acceptable after 2 years, while 93.3% of DT and 90% of IT showed acceptable function. For biological scores, 96.67% of DRs and 100% of IRs was acceptable after 24 months. Considering all properties, the success rates were 93.3% for DRs and 90% for IRs.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2 years, both restorations presented similar and good clinical behavior for all the properties analyzed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Light-cured direct posterior composite restorations may perform similarly to indirect composite restorations made with precured CAD/CAM composite blocks up to 2 years.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.

Clinical decision-making in anterior resin composite restorations: a multicenter evaluation

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether a sample of anterior resin composite restorations could be differently evaluated in different centers of evaluation by clinical and lay evaluators.

METHODS

Anterior resin composite restorations on high-quality intraoral digital photography were evaluated using FDI criteria (1-5 score) by pairs of clinical and lay evaluators in Brazil (BR), France (FR), Peru (PE), and the United States of America (USA). Scores were allocated as maintenance (1, 2, 3), repair (4) and replacement (5) when comparing clinical evaluators and, as acceptable (1, 2, 3) and unacceptable (4, 5) when comparing clinical vs. lay evaluators and lay vs. lay evaluators. The Chi-square test compared the frequencies of scores among the centers.

RESULTS

The frequencies of maintaining, repairing, or replacing anterior resin composite restorations given by clinical evaluators varied depending on the evaluation center. BR and PE showed the highest frequencies for repair and replacement, while FR and USA showed the highest frequencies for maintenance. The comparison of frequencies of anterior resin composite restorations accepted or unaccepted by the clinical vs lay evaluators in the same centers showed a significantly higher frequency of acceptable dental restorations coming from clinical evaluators. Comparison between lay evaluators from different centers showed significant higher frequency of unacceptable dental restorations by BR, compared to other centers.

CONCLUSIONS

In the evaluation of anterior resin composite restorations, the maintenance, repair, or replacement trends can vary among different centers. The unacceptable rate came more frequently from lay than from clinical evaluators. Lay evaluators from different centers differed significantly.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinical and lay evaluators in distant evaluation centers can present different trends when assessing anterior resin composite restoration. Multicenter evaluations can help to understand such differences and it is important because clinical decision-making based on scientific evidence comes from clinical studies done in different research centers.