Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021 Jun;33(4):590-604. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12697. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
To evaluate the clinical performance of resin composite restorations and to investigate causes of failure.
The longevity of 216 restorations in 53 patients (mean age, 33.3 years) was retrospectively evaluated according to Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Dental history and photographic data were used to evaluate diastema closure (n = 199) and recontouring (n = 19) restorations comprising microhybrid (Essentia Universal, GC Corp.), nanohybrid (Ceram.x One, Dentsply Sirona), and nanofilled (Estelite Asteria, Tokuyama Dental) composites. Data were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test, Cox regression analysis, Pearson chi-square test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The overall survival rate was 90.3 % and the mean survival duration was 46.2 months during the for 4 - year study period. The annual failure rate was 0.9 % - 3.4 %. Mean survival durations for diastema closure and recontouring restorations were 46.2 and 45.9 months, respectively (p = 0.328). Mean survival durations for Essentia Universal, Estelite Asteria, and Ceram.x One were 46.1, 46.7, and 45.7 months, respectively (p = 0.677). If we include failed restorations that were repaired and remained functional, the overall survival rate was 100 %.
Longevity was similar among composites and restoration types. The long-term clinical performance of monochromatic anterior composite restorations was robust. Composite repair may be suitable for diastema closure and recontouring restorations.
There is a lack of long-term clinical evidence regarding the performance of direct anterior composite restorations. Monochromatic direct composite restorations may meet both the esthetic and functional expectations with even simpler restorative techniques. This 4 - year follow-up study evaluated the clinical performance of monochromatic anterior diastema closure and recontouring restorations with three different composite materials. The longevity of the restorations and the reasons for failure were investigated.
评估树脂复合材料修复体的临床性能，并探讨其失败原因。
根据国际牙科联合会（Fédération Dentaire Internationale，FDI）标准，对 53 名患者（平均年龄 33.3 岁）的 216 个修复体的长期疗效进行回顾性评估。使用牙科病史和照片数据评估了 199 个用于关闭间隙（n=199）和重新塑形（n=19）的修复体，这些修复体包括微混合（Essentia Universal，GC 公司）、纳米混合（Ceram.x One，Dentsply Sirona）和纳米填充（Estelite Asteria，Tokuyama Dental）复合材料。使用 Kaplan-Meier 对数秩检验、Cox 回归分析、Pearson χ2 检验对数据进行分析。p＜0.05 为统计学意义显著。在 4 年的研究期间，总体存活率为 90.3%，平均存活时间为 46.2 个月。年失败率为 0.9%至 3.4%。间隙关闭和重新塑形修复体的平均存活时间分别为 46.2 和 45.9 个月（p=0.328）。Essentia Universal、Estelite Asteria 和 Ceram.x One 的平均存活时间分别为 46.1、46.7 和 45.7 个月（p=0.677）。如果我们将已修复并保持功能的失败修复体包括在内，总体存活率为 100%。
复合材料和修复体类型之间的长期疗效相似。单色前牙复合材料的长期临床性能稳健。复合修复可能适用于间隙关闭和重新塑形修复体。
直接前牙复合修复体的长期临床证据不足。单色直接复合修复体可能通过更简单的修复技术，满足美观和功能的期望。这项为期 4 年的随访研究评估了三种不同复合材料的单色前牙间隙关闭和重新塑形修复体的临床性能。研究了修复体的长期疗效及其失败原因。
