Clinical evaluation of lithium disilicate versus indirect resin composite partial posterior restorations - A 7.8-year retrospective study

Lempel, Edina and Gyulai, S and Lovász, Bálint Viktor and Jeges, Sára and Szalma, József (2023) Clinical evaluation of lithium disilicate versus indirect resin composite partial posterior restorations - A 7.8-year retrospective study. DENTAL MATERIALS, 39 (12). pp. 1095-1104. ISSN 0109-5641

Preview

Text DEMA_Clinicalevaluationoflithiumdisilicateversusindirectresincompositepartialposteriorrestorations-A7.8-yearretrospectivestudy.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate retrospectively the longevity of lithium disilicate ceramic (LidiSi) vs. laboratory-processed resin-based composite (RBC) inlay/onlay/overlay restorations and risk factors associated with restoration def iciencies and failures. Methods: Patients (n = 91) receiving LidiSi (73.1%) and RBC (36.9%) inlays/onlays/overlays between 2007 and 2017 were selected. The restorations were evaluated using the modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. The survival of the restorations was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. Factors affecting the occurrence of deficiencies were examined by logistic regression analysis. This was performed with the use of the Generalized Estimating Equation model including Repeated measurements (GEER), with the consideration that the same patient had several teeth in the sample. Risk estimation was conducted for each evaluated criterion (p < 0.05). Results: The survival of LidiSi and RBC restorations were 96.8% and 84.9%, respectively after a mean observation period of 7.8 ± 3.3 years. The annual failure rate was 0.2% for LidiSi and 1.0% for RBC. The probability of survival was above 98% for both restorations in the first 6 years, however, it dropped to 60% for RBC by the end of the 15th year. For both materials the reasons for failure included secondary caries, restoration fracture, and endodontic complication. In addition, LidiSi also failed due to tooth fracture, while RBC due to marginal gap formation and loss of retention. Among the evaluated risk factors, material of restoration (OR=6.8, CI 95% :3.1–14.9), oral hygiene (OR=8.0, CI 95% : 2.9–22.1], and bruxism (OR=1.9, CI 95% : 1.1–3.3) showed a significant impact on the evaluated criteria. Significance: LidiSi and RBC restorations showed similarly excellent 6-year survival, however, in the long term significantly more failures should be expected for RBCs.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item