Direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2022
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte
Rīga Stradiņš University
Rīga Stradiņš University
Abstract
Pamatinformācija: Sānu zobu atjaunošana atjaunošana ar kompozītmateriāliem ir viena no visvairāk veiktajām zibārstniecības procedūrām un tā ir uzskatāma par viegli paveicamu. Pastāv ierobežots daudzums pētījumu, kuros salīdzina tieši un netieši izgatavotu kompozītmateriālu restaurācijas.
Mērķi: Šī apskata mērķis ir novērtēt un salīdzināt tiešo un netiešo kompozītu restaurāciju klīnisko veiktspēju I un II klases kavitātēs pastāvīgajos molāros un premolāros.
Metodes: Tika veikta sistemātiska meklēšana, izmantojot starptautiskās datubāzes Science direct, Scopus, PubMed un Wiley tiešsaistes bibliotēkas, lai atrastu kontrolētus pētījumus (RCT), kuri publicēti laikā no 2012. gada līdz 2022. gada aprīlim, salīdzinot tiešās un netiešās kompozītmateriālu restaurācijas pastāvīgajos molāros un premolāros.
Rezultāti: No kopumā 1604 pētījumiem 5 pētījumi tika atlasīti un iekļauti analīzē. Šajos pētījumos piedalījās 345 dalībnieki ar 628 I un II klases restaurācijām. No šīm restaurācijām 327 bija tiešās un 301 - netiešās kompozītmateriālu restaurācijas. Katrs pētījums tika vērtēts, izmantojot atšķirīgus vērtēšanas kritērijus, un vidējais novērošanas periods bija 3,6 gadi. Trīs no analizētajiem pētījumiem ziņoja tikai par skaitliskām, bet ne statistiski nozīmīgām atšķirībām starp abām metodēm. Tikai vienā pētījumā pēc divu gadu ilgas novērošanas netika reģistrēta neviena pilnīga neveiksme, pārējos pētījumos bija no 1 līdz pat 53 neveiksmīgām restaurācijām.
Vienā pētījumā pēc trīs gadu novērtējuma tika ziņots par ievērojami labāku marginālo integritāti netiešajās restaurācijās. Netika konstatēta arī statistiski nozīmīga atšķirība attiecībā uz virsmas tekstūru. Tomēr vienā RCT tika konstatēts, ka netiešo inkrustāciju restaurāciju virsmas spīdums ir labāks (P = .015).
Secinājums: Pamatojoties uz iekļautajiem pētījumiem, kā arī iepriekš publicētajiem datiem, statistiskas atšķirības starp abām pieejām netika konstatētas. Tomēr, tā kā trūkst ilgtermiņa augstas kvalitātes RCT, ir grūti izdarīt precīzu secinājumu par to, kura no šīm metodēm ir kvalitatīvāka.
Background: Despite being one of the most performed treatments in a dental office posterior composite restorations are easily overseen. There are limited studies comparing direct and indirect composite techniques and a better clinical understanding is required to advice the correct treatment. Objectives: The aim of this review was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composites restorations in class I and class II cavities in permanent molars and premolars. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the international databases ScienceDirect, Scopus, Wiley Online Library and PubMed to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2012 and April 2022 comparing direct and indirect composite restorations in permanent molars and premolars. Results: From a total of 1604 studies, 5 were eligible and included in the analysis. These studies included 345 participants with 628 class I and class II restorations. Of these restorations 327 were direct and 301 were indirect composite restorations. Each study was evaluated using different evaluation criteria and the mean observation period was 3.6 years. Three of the analyzed studies reported only numerical but not statistically significant differences between the two techniques. Only one study recorded no complete failures after a follow up of two years, the other studies ranged from 1 up to 53 failed restorations. One study, at three-year evaluation, reported significantly better marginal integrity in indirect restorations. Also, no statistically significant difference was reported regarding surface texture. However, one RCT noted superior surface luster in indirect inlay restorations (P = .015). Conclusion: Based on the included studies, as well as the previously published data, no statistical difference was found between the two approaches. Nevertheless, the lack of long-term high quality RCTs makes it difficult to reach an accurate conclusion about which one is the more favourable technique.
Background: Despite being one of the most performed treatments in a dental office posterior composite restorations are easily overseen. There are limited studies comparing direct and indirect composite techniques and a better clinical understanding is required to advice the correct treatment. Objectives: The aim of this review was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composites restorations in class I and class II cavities in permanent molars and premolars. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the international databases ScienceDirect, Scopus, Wiley Online Library and PubMed to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2012 and April 2022 comparing direct and indirect composite restorations in permanent molars and premolars. Results: From a total of 1604 studies, 5 were eligible and included in the analysis. These studies included 345 participants with 628 class I and class II restorations. Of these restorations 327 were direct and 301 were indirect composite restorations. Each study was evaluated using different evaluation criteria and the mean observation period was 3.6 years. Three of the analyzed studies reported only numerical but not statistically significant differences between the two techniques. Only one study recorded no complete failures after a follow up of two years, the other studies ranged from 1 up to 53 failed restorations. One study, at three-year evaluation, reported significantly better marginal integrity in indirect restorations. Also, no statistically significant difference was reported regarding surface texture. However, one RCT noted superior surface luster in indirect inlay restorations (P = .015). Conclusion: Based on the included studies, as well as the previously published data, no statistical difference was found between the two approaches. Nevertheless, the lack of long-term high quality RCTs makes it difficult to reach an accurate conclusion about which one is the more favourable technique.
Description
Zobārstniecība
Dentistry
Veselības aprūpe
Health Care
Dentistry
Veselības aprūpe
Health Care
Keywords
Sveķu kompozītu restaurācijas, tiešās restaurācijas, netiešās restaurācijas, inlejas, onlejas., Resin composite restorations, direct restorations, indirect restorations, inlays, onlays.