Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial
- 118 Downloads
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative compared with a nano-ceramic composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with bruxism.
Materials and methods
Twenty-five patients with NCCLs and bruxism were enrolled in the present study. Before treatment, the dimensions of the NCCLs (depth, cervico-incisal height, and mesio-distal width) and internal angles were measured. Degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival conditions were recorded. A total of 148 NCCLs were randomly restored with a glass hybrid restorative system (GH) (Equia Forte Fil, GC, Tokyo, Japan) or a nano-ceramic composite resin (RBC) (Ceram.X One Universal, Dentsply, DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months according to the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Pearson’s chi-square, Fisher’s exact, Mann-Whitney U, and Cochran’s Q tests (P < 0.05).
At the 24-month recall, 126 restorations in 22 patients were evaluated. The recall rate was 88.0%. No significant difference was found between the materials for retention (P = 0.285), and no relationships were found between internal angle, depth, cervico-incisal height, or mesio-distal width and retention of the restorations (P > 0.05). A significant difference was observed between the materials for marginal adaptation (P = 0.002), but no relationships were found among depth, cervico-incisal height, and mesio-distal width and marginal adaptation (P > 0.05). RBC showed better results for marginal adaptation. Between marginal adaptation, TWI, and the gingival index, correlations were significant (P < 0.001, P = 0.002). A significant change was found in marginal discoloration in GH and RBC over time (P = 0.039 and P = 0.004, respectively). Neither secondary caries nor tooth sensitivity was observed on any of the restorations at any evaluation.
Although nano-ceramic RBC showed better marginal adaptation than GH, both tested restoratives showed clinically acceptable performance for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with bruxism after 24 months of clinical service.
This study is registered on http://clinicaltrials.gov under protocol record KA-16020, Clinical Performance of a Glass Hybrid Restorative in NCCL’s of Patients With Bruxism.
KeywordsGlass hybrid restorative Nano-ceramic composite resin NCCL Bruxism Class V
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures in studies involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
- 3.Xhonga FA (1977) Bruxism and its effect on the teeth. J Oral Rehabil 4:65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1977.tb00967.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.GC. EQUIA Forte: GC (2015) [Available from: https://cdn.gceurope.com/v1/PID/equiaforte/leaflet/LFL_EQUIA_Forte_en.pdf
- 16.Dentsply (2018) [cited 2018. Available from: http://dentsplymea.com/products/restorative/composites/ceramx-one-universal
- 20.Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH, Higashi C, Queiroz VA, Rego RO et al (2015) Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients’ preference, and restoration retention in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 40:581–593. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-089-C CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Luiz de Barreto Aranha R, Nogueira Guimaraes de Abreu MH, Serra-Negra JM, Martins RC (2018) Evidence-based support for sleep bruxism treatment other than oral appliances remains insufficient. J Evid Based Dent Pract 18:159–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2018.03.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Hafshejani TM, Zamanian A, Venugopal JR, Rezvani Z, Sefat F, Saeb MR, Vahabi H, Zarrintaj P, Mozafari M (2017) Antibacterial glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a critical review on the current status of extended release formulations. J Control Release 262:317–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.07.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.GC. Introducing the restorative innovation of glass hybrid technology 2018 [Available from: https://cdn.gceurope.com/v1/PID/equiaforte/leaflet/LFL_A_Comprehensive_Guide_to_EQUIA_Forte_en.pdf
- 36.Franco EB, Benetti, A.R., Ishikiriama, S.K., Santiago, S.L., Lauris, J.R. (2006), Jorge, M.F., Navarro, M.F. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 31:403–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2341/05-87 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Santamaria MP, Casati MZ, Nociti FH, Sallum AW, Sallum EA, Aukhil I, Wallet SM, Shaddox LM (2012) Connective tissue graft plus resin-modified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions: microbiological and immunological results. Clin Oral Investig 17:67–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0690-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Paolantonio M, D’ercole S, Perinetti G, Tripodi D, Catamo G, Serral E, Brue C, Piccolomini R (2004) Clinical and microbiological effects of different restorative materials on the periodontal tissues adjacent to subgingival class V restorations. 1-year results. J Clin Periodontol 31(3):200–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00472.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Santos VR, Lucchesi JA, Cortelli SC, Amaral CM, Feres M, Duarte PM (2007) Effects of glass ionomer and microfilled composite subgingival restorations on periodontal tissue and subgingival biofilm: a 6-month evaluation. J Periodontol 78(8):1522–1528. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.070032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Hussainy SN, Nasim I, Thomas T, Ranjan M (2018) Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: one-year follow-up. J Conserv Dent 21:510–515. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_51_18 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar