A 2-year clinical evaluation of direct and semi-direct resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomized clinical study
- 7 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 2-year success of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using the direct or semi-direct techniques.
Materials and methods
Thirty volunteers presenting with at least two NCCLs were included. Each participant received one restoration using the direct technique and the other using the semi-direct technique, totaling 60 restorations. Time for completing the treatment was computed. Assessments at baseline, 7 days, and 6, 12, and 24 months were performed using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Descriptive analysis was reported as a percentage of successful treatments. For inferential analysis, the Student t test was used to evaluate the differences between extension, depth, and time. The chi-square/Fisher tests were used to compare treatment success after each period (α = 0.05). The results were evaluated by using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
Differences were detected regarding mean ± standard deviation time, in which direct and semi-direct procedures were accomplished in 21.8 (± 14.5) and 35.3 (± 19.9) min, respectively. Of the 60 restorations placed, 7 failed in the direct group while 8 failed in the semi-direct group up to 2 years. No differences were detected between restorative protocols. The cumulative survival was 88.5% and 88.4% for the direct technique and semi-direct techniques after 24 months, respectively.
The tested restorative protocols present similar results for NCCLs within the studied periods.
The semi-direct technique exhibited clinical performance similar to direct technique for NCCL, demonstrating an alternative for restorations of these lesions.
KeywordsNon-carious cervical lesions Composite resin Semi-direct technique Randomized clinical trial
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were 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.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Pecie R, Krejci I, Garcia-Godoy F, Bortolotto T (2011) Noncarious cervical lesions--a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 1: prevention. Am J Dent 24:49–56Google Scholar
- 9.Fahl N, Jr. (2015) Direct-indirect class V restorations: a novel approach for treating noncarious cervical lesions. J Esthet Restor Dent 27:267–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12151
- 11.Magni E, Zhang L, Hickel R, Bossu M, Polimeni A, Ferrari M (2008) SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing. J Dent 36:885–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Pecie R, Krejci I, Garcia-Godoy F, Bortolotto T (2011) Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL)--a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: restoration. Am J Dent 24:183–192Google Scholar
- 19.Stewardson D, Creanor S, Thornley P, Bigg T, Bromage C, Browne A, Cottam D, Dalby D, Gilmour J, Horton J, Roberts E, Westoby L, Burke T (2012) The survival of class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival. Br Dent J 212:E14. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, Gaengler P, Lindberg A, Huysmans MC, van Dijken JW (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93:943–949. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Sarrett DC (2007) Prediction of clinical outcomes of a restoration based on in vivo marginal quality evaluation. J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 1):117–120Google Scholar
- 29.Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R (2000) Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 13:60D–76DGoogle Scholar
- 31.Barceleiro Mde O, De Miranda MS, Dias KR and Sekito T, Jr. (2003) Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneer bonded with flowable composite. Oper Dent 28:423–428Google Scholar
- 40.Zanatta RF, Silva TM, Esper M, Bresciani E, Goncalves S, Caneppele T (2019) Bonding performance of simplified adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions at 2-year follow-up: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-049-C
- 47.Owens BM, Johnson WW (2005) Effect of insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of class V resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 7:303–308Google Scholar
- 48.Farias D, Walter R and Swift EJ, Jr. (2014) Critic appraisal. Postoperative sensitivity with indirect restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 26:208–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12103