Direct Short-Fiber Reinforced Composite Resin Restorations and Glass-Ceramic Endocrowns in Endodontically Treated Molars: A 4-Year Clinical Study

: Bijelic-Donova Jasmina, Myyryläinen Tiina, Karsila Ville, Vallittu Pekka K, Tanner Johanna

Publisher: DENNIS BARBER LTD

: 2022

: European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY

: EUR J PROSTHODONT RE

: 30

: 4

: 284

: 295

: 12

: 0965-7452

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2333Bijelic-Donova12

: https://www.ejprd.org/download.php?op=institution_view_article&article_id=1080https://www.ejprd.org/unpublished_view.php?article_id=198

To compare the clinical performance of direct and indirect cusp covering restorations in endodontically treated molars (ETMs). Eighteen ETMs in sixteen patients were ran-domly assigned into one of the two study groups:Group 1 (SFCRs) direct composite res-torations with a short fiber-reinforced base, and Group 2 (GCEs) indirect glass-ceramic endocrowns. Eleven teeth were allocated to Group 1 and seven teeth to Group 2. Restora-tions were prepared in the student clinic between November 2012 and January 2015, and were evaluated at baseline and after 4.0 years according to modified USPHS criteria. The number of visits required for fabrication and maintenance of restorations were also compared. Two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the differences between the groups (p=0.05). One SFCR and one GCE were lost due to secondary caries and endodontic complications, resulting in a 4-year survival rate of 90.9% and 85.7% respectively. Two SFCRs required minor grinding and polishing due to chipping or gloss loss, and two SF-CRs needed repair due to secondary caries or loss of proximal contact. One GCE required occlusal adjustment. GCEs showed smoother surface texture and better-preserved ana-tomic morphology. SFCRs required more maintenance, were simpler to produce, needed usually one visit and repairs were easier to perform.