Total Rehabilitation Using Adhesive Dental Restorations in Patients with Severe Tooth Wear: A 5-Year Retrospective Case Series Study

INTRODUCTION

Currently, there is little clinical evidence to support the medium- and long-term survival and clinical performance of ultraconservative approaches using adhesive restorations in full-mouth restorations. The aim of this case series study was to evaluate the medium-term clinical performance of anterior and posterior adhesive restorations applied with direct and indirect techniques using resin composites and glass-ceramic-based materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The inclusion criteria were an esthetic problem as the main reason for consultation and severe generalized wear of grade 2 to 4 according to the Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES 2.0). In addition, at each follow-up appointment, patients were required to submit a clinical-parameter-monitoring record according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.

RESULTS

Eight patients with severe tooth wear were treated through full rehabilitation in a private dental clinic in Spain by a single operator (AFC). A total of 212 restorations were performed, which were distributed as follows: 66 occlusal veneers, 26 palatal veneers and 120 vestibular veneers. No signs of marginal microleakage or postoperative sensitivity were observed in any occlusal, vestibular and/or palatal restoration after the follow-up period. The estimated survival rate of the 212 restorations was 90.1% over 60 months of observation, with a survival time of 57.6 months. Only 21 restorations had complications, which were mostly resolved with a direct composite resin. The dichotomous variables of the restoration type (posterior veneer, anterior veneer) and the type of restored tooth (anterior, posterior) were the risk predictors with statistically significant influences (p < 0.005) on the survival of the restorations.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this study, there is a significantly higher risk of restorative complications in posterior teeth compared to anterior teeth. Also, it can be concluded that the indication of adhesive anterior and posterior restorations is justified in the total oral rehabilitation of patients with severe multifactorial tooth wear, as they are associated with a low risk of failure.

Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Provisional restorations represent an important phase during the rehabilitation process, knowledge of the mechanical properties of the available materials allows us to predict their clinical performance. At present, there is no systematic review, which supports the clinicians' criteria, in the selection of a specific material over another for a particular clinical situation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylates and monomethacrylates used in fabricating direct provisional restorations, in terms of flexural strength, fracture toughness and hardness. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report and were complemented by hand-searching, with no limitation of time or language up to January 10, 2017. Studies that assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylate- and monomethacrylate-based provisional restoration materials were selected. A quality assessment of full-text articles were performed according to modified ARRIVE and CONSORT criteria and modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for in vitro studies. Initially, 256 articles were identified. After removing the duplicates and applying the selection criteria, 24 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 7 were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). It may be concluded that dimethacrylate-based provisional restorations presented better mechanical behavior than monomethacrylate-based ones in terms of flexural strength and hardness. Fracture toughness showed no significant differences. Within the monomethacrylate group, polymethylmethacrylate showed greater flexural strength than polyethylmethacrylate.