Singh Ipsita, Suwaidi Noora O E S Al, Pisarla Manish, Chundi Bharathi, Mansoor Manawar A, Abdul Hina N, Makwana Trupti G
Intern, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Specialist Pediatric Dentistry, SEHA, AHS, Rabdan, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 May;17(Suppl 1):S436-S438. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1443_24. Epub 2025 Feb 25.
The study aims to compare patient-reported outcomes for aesthetic restorations in anterior teeth using composite resins, glass ionomer cements (GICs), and ceramic-based restorations. Patient satisfaction regarding aesthetics, functionality, durability, and overall experience was evaluated.
This prospective cohort study included 180 patients (aged 18-65 years) who required anterior aesthetic restorations. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either composite resin, GIC, or ceramic restorations. Satisfaction with aesthetics, comfort, and durability was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 1-, 6-, and 12-month post-treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, with a value < 0.05 considered significant.
Ceramic restorations scored the highest for aesthetics (VAS 9.1), functionality (VAS 9.0), and durability (5% reported issues). Composite resins had lower durability (15% reported issues) but scored well in aesthetics (VAS 8.2). GICs had the lowest overall satisfaction, with 25% reporting durability issues. Overall satisfaction was highest for ceramics (94%), followed by composites (85%) and GICs (68%).
Ceramic restorations offer superior aesthetic and functional outcomes. Composite resins provide a cost-effective option with acceptable aesthetics, while GICs were rated lower due to their limited durability and aesthetics.
本研究旨在比较使用复合树脂、玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）和陶瓷修复体进行前牙美学修复的患者报告结局。评估患者对美学、功能、耐用性和总体体验的满意度。
这项前瞻性队列研究纳入了180例需要进行前牙美学修复的患者（年龄在18至65岁之间）。患者被随机分配接受复合树脂、GIC或陶瓷修复体。在治疗后1个月、6个月和12个月时，使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）测量对美学、舒适度和耐用性的满意度。采用方差分析进行统计分析，P值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
陶瓷修复体在美学（VAS 9.1）、功能（VAS 9.0）和耐用性（5%报告有问题）方面得分最高。复合树脂的耐用性较低（15%报告有问题），但在美学方面得分较高（VAS 8.2）。GIC的总体满意度最低，25%报告有耐用性问题。陶瓷的总体满意度最高（94%），其次是复合材料（85%）和GIC（68%）。
陶瓷修复体具有卓越的美学和功能效果。复合树脂提供了一种具有可接受美学效果的经济有效选择，而GIC由于其有限的耐用性和美学效果而评分较低。
