Abu-Awwad Motasum, Halasa Ruba, Haikal Laila, El-Ma'aita Ahmad, Hammad Mohammad, Petridis Haralampos
Prosthodontic Department, University of Jordan School of Dentistry, Amman, Jordan.
Prosthodontic unit, University of Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
J Dent. 2025 May;156:105699. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105699. Epub 2025 Mar 17.
To compare the survival and success rates of direct composite resin restorations versus metal-ceramic crowns in endodontically treated molar teeth with minimal structure loss.
This clinical trial included 60 participants, each with an endodontically treated molar with at least three remaining axial walls (>2mm). Half of the participants received direct restorations, and half metal-ceramic crowns. USPHS criteria were used at baseline and annually for three years. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests analyzed survival/success rates. Cox regression evaluated predictors, and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests compared USPHS outcomes.
Fifty-three participants completed the 3-year follow-up (7 dropped out). The three-year survival rate for crowns was 93.3 % (95 % CI: 78.7 %-98.2 %), while the direct restoration group had 76.7 % (95 % CI: 59.1 %-88.2 %). The difference was insignificant (P = 0.061). Success rates were also comparable (crowns=90.0 % vs. restorations=76.7 %; P = 0.138). Bruxism significantly predicted failure (HR=12.8, 95 % CI: 1.2-133.3, P = 0.032). Direct restorations had worse outcomes than crowns regarding caries (P = 0.018), surface texture (P = 0.019), and marginal integrity (P = 0.006). Crowns had worse outcomes in terms of periodontal indices (P = 0.032) and presence of periapical infection (P = 0.023). Over time, direct restorations significantly deteriorated in terms of caries (P = 0.041), margin discoloration (P = 0.007), margin integrity (P = 0.026), and fracture (P = 0.034), while crowns showed no significant changes.
For endodontically treated molars with minimal structure loss, both direct composite resin restorations and full crowns demonstrated similar survival and success after 3 years of function. However, crowns were more predictable, especially for bruxers. Direct restorations may suit cases with lower occlusal loads, endodontic monitoring, or budget constraints.
This study showed similar 3-year survival/success rates of direct composite restorations compared to metal-ceramic crowns in restoring endodontically treated molar teeth with minimal structural loss. These results indicate that direct restorations may be suitable alternatives for molars with minimal structural loss, particularly in cases with reduced occlusal loads, a need for endodontic monitoring, or financial limitations.
比较在结构损失最小的经根管治疗的磨牙中,直接复合树脂修复与金属烤瓷冠的生存率和成功率。
这项临床试验纳入了60名参与者,每人有一颗经根管治疗的磨牙,至少保留三个轴壁(>2mm)。一半参与者接受直接修复,另一半接受金属烤瓷冠修复。在基线时以及之后三年每年使用美国公共卫生服务部(USPHS)标准。采用Kaplan-Meier法和对数秩检验分析生存率/成功率。Cox回归评估预测因素,Mann-Whitney U检验和Wilcoxon检验比较USPHS结果。
53名参与者完成了3年随访(7名退出)。冠修复的三年生存率为93.3%(95%CI:78.7%-98.2%),而直接修复组为76.7%(95%CI:59.1%-88.2%)。差异无统计学意义(P=0.061)。成功率也相当(冠修复=90.0%,修复=76.7%;P=0.138)。磨牙症是失败的显著预测因素(HR=12.8,95%CI:1.2-133.3,P=0.032)。在龋齿(P=0.018)、表面质地(P=0.019)和边缘完整性(P=0.006)方面,直接修复的结果比冠修复差。冠修复在牙周指数(P=0.032)和根尖周感染情况(P=0.023)方面结果较差。随着时间推移,直接修复在龋齿(P=0.041)、边缘变色(P=0.007)、边缘完整性(P=0.026)和折断(P=0.034)方面显著恶化,而冠修复无显著变化。
对于结构损失最小且经根管治疗的磨牙,直接复合树脂修复和全冠修复在功能3年后显示出相似的生存率和成功率。然而,冠修复更具可预测性,尤其是对于磨牙症患者。直接修复可能适用于咬合负荷较低、需要进行根管监测或预算有限的情况。
本研究表明,在修复结构损失最小的经根管治疗的磨牙时,直接复合树脂修复与金属烤瓷冠的3年生存率/成功率相似。这些结果表明,直接修复可能是结构损失最小的磨牙的合适替代方案,特别是在咬合负荷降低、需要进行根管监测或存在经济限制的情况下。