Bruxism, Endodontically Treated Molar, Composite Restoration, Fiber Reinforced Composite
Conditions
Keywords
Fiber reinforced resin composite, composite restoration, endodontically treated teeth, bruxism
Brief summary
The aim of this prospective, randomized, parallel-group clinical study is to compare the 6- and 12-month clinical performances of direct composite restorations applied to endodontically treated posterior teeth with or without the use of fiber-reinforced composite material in individuals with parafunctional habits. Bruxism is a repetitive jaw-muscle activity characterized by clenching and/or grinding of teeth. The possible outcomes of bruxism include wear and/or fractures in the teeth and restorations. Therefore, the choice of restorative methods and materials for restorations in bruxist individuals is of great importance. Direct adhesive restorations are the first treatment option for endodontically treated teeth with no excessive material loss and/or those that have lost vitality due to trauma. Over the past decade, the use of fiber-reinforced materials has been recommended to prevent catastrophic fractures. Fiber-reinforced materials have been developed and introduced to the market based on the idea that a restorative material that distributes or absorbs stress in high-stress areas will protect the underlying tooth structure. Although there are numerous studies on the mechanical durability of restorative treatments for endodontically treated teeth in cases with parafunctional habits, there are limited clinical studies regarding the clinical performance of these methods. The study included 32 premolar or molar teeth with Class 1 and Class 2 cavity types and a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm, which had undergone endodontic treatment from volunteer participants. The teeth randomly assigned were divided into two groups (n=16): Group 1: fiber-reinforced composite restoration (EverX flow, GC) (FRCR), Group 2: composite restoration (Gneal Posterior, GC) (CR). The restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months using the FDI criteria.
Interventions
The study included premolar or molar teeth with Class 1 and Class 2 cavity types and a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm, which had undergone endodontic treatment from volunteer participants. The teeth randomly assigned were divided into two groups: Group 1: fiber-reinforced composite restoration (FRCR), Group 2: composite restoration (CR). Direct composite restorations with or without fiber reinforced material were applied. The restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months using the FDI criteria.
OTHERClinical evaluation
The restorations were evaluated by two experienced and fully blinded observers according to the functional, esthetic, and biological criteria. The criteria were scored from 1 to 5 (sufficient/acceptable= score 1 to 3, insufficient/inacceptable but repair possible= score 4, and insufficient/inacceptable but repair not possible/reasonable= score 5). Scores of 4 and 5 were considered as failure in the restoration.
Sponsors
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Intervention model description
The study included premolar and molar teeth with Class 1 and Class 2 cavity types and a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm, which had undergone endodontic treatment from volunteer participants. The teeth randomly assigned were restored into two groups: Group 1: fiber-reinforced composite restoration (FRCR), Group 2: composite restoration (CR). The restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months using the FDI criteria.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Volunteers aged 18 and above Cases where restoration was performed immediately after the completion of root canal treatment on posterior teeth Endodontically treated posterior teeth that required replacement of the old restoration due to secondary caries or fractures Cases without pulpal symptoms Posterior teeth classified as Class 1 and Class 2 according to cavity classification Teeth with a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm Presence of parafunction Teeth with a natural tooth in the opposing arch and adjacent teeth on both proximal sides
Exclusion criteria
* Individuals who are not volunteers * Cases with ongoing pulpal symptoms * Posterior teeth with cusp loss * Teeth with root canal filling that is at least 2 mm shorter than the radiographic apex * Individuals unable to attend periodic follow-up visits * Individuals with a Gingival Index score greater than 1 * Severe periodontal disease * Presence of systemic diseases * Individuals with allergic reactions to any of the materials to be used * Pregnant or breastfeeding women
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| clinical success | 6 and 12 months-follow-up | The restorations were evaluated by two experienced and fully blinded observers according to the functional, esthetic and biological criteria according to the FDI criteria. The criteria were scored from 1 to 5 (sufficient/acceptable= score 1 to 3, insufficient/inacceptable but repair possible= score 4, and insufficient/inacceptable but repair not possible/reasonable= score 5). Scores of 4 and 5 were considered as failure in the restoration. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed