PMID- 34817964
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20211126
LR  - 20211126
IS  - 1757-9988 (Electronic)
IS  - 1461-5185 (Linking)
VI  - 23
IP  - 6
DP  - 2021 Dec 3
TI  - Glass Hybrid Versus Nanocomposite for Restoration of Sclerotic Non-carious 
      Cervical Lesions: 18-Month Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
PG  - 487-496
LID - 10.3290/j.jad.b2287831 [doi]
AB  - PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance and treatment times between glass 
      hybrid (GH; EQUIA Forte Fil/EQUIA Forte Coat, GC) and adhesive/nanofilled resin 
      composite restorations (RC; OptiBond FL, Kerr/Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Oral 
      Care) of sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions (sNCCL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 
      This is an 18-month interim analysis of a 36-month cluster-randomized trial 
      (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02631161). Eighty-eight patients (50-70 years) 
      with 175 sNCCLs were randomized to receive GH or RC restorations. Restorations 
      were placed without mechanical cavity preparation, and treatment time was 
      recorded. After 18 months, restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria. 
      Factors associated with restoration survival were evaluated using multi-level 
      Cox-regression analysis. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used to analyze 
      factors associated with treatment time. RESULTS: After a mean of 18 months 
      (min/max: 8/25), 78 patients (160 restorations) were assessed. Fifteen 
      restorations (18%) failed in GH, and 11 (12%) in the RC, without a significant 
      difference in survival (p = 0.904/Cox). Retention loss was the most common reason 
      for failure in both groups. Restorations placed in older patients showed lower 
      risk of failure [OR (95% CI): 0.90 (0.81-0.99) per year], while mandibular teeth 
      showed higher risks [2.89 (1.00-8.31)]. Treatment time was significantly shorter 
      for GH (mean +/- SD: 8.6 +/- 4.3 min) than RC (11.7 +/- 5.7 min; p < 0.001). 
      CONCLUSIONS: GH may be a suitable alternative to RC for restoring sNCCLs, without 
      any significant difference in survival between the two materials at this interim 
      analysis. In addition, placing GH restorations required less chairtime than did 
      placing RC restorations.
FAU - Gostemeyer, Gerd
AU  - Gostemeyer G
FAU - Seifert, Tilmann
AU  - Seifert T
FAU - Jeggle-Engbert, Linda-Maria
AU  - Jeggle-Engbert LM
FAU - Paris, Sebastian
AU  - Paris S
FAU - Schwendicke, Falk
AU  - Schwendicke F
LA  - eng
SI  - ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT02631161
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
PL  - Germany
TA  - J Adhes Dent
JT  - The journal of adhesive dentistry
JID - 100888552
RN  - 0 (Composite Resins)
RN  - 0 (Glass Ionomer Cements)
MH  - Aged
MH  - Composite Resins
MH  - Dental Cavity Preparation
MH  - *Dental Restoration, Permanent
MH  - Glass Ionomer Cements
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Nanocomposites
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - composite resin
OT  - glass hybrid
OT  - glass ionomer
OT  - non-carious cervical lesion
OT  - randomized controlled trial
OT  - restoration
OT  - sclerotic dentin
OT  - treatment time
EDAT- 2021/11/25 06:00
MHDA- 2021/11/27 06:00
CRDT- 2021/11/24 13:04
PHST- 2021/11/24 13:04 [entrez]
PHST- 2021/11/25 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2021/11/27 06:00 [medline]
AID - 2287831 [pii]
AID - 10.3290/j.jad.b2287831 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Adhes Dent. 2021 Dec 3;23(6):487-496. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b2287831.