Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 15 Sept 2023

The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up

,
,
,
, and
Page Range: E106 – E118
DOI: 10.2341/22-143-C
Save
Download PDF

SUMMARY

Purpose

To assess the clinical performance of restorations with ground and unground enamel for diastema closure.

Methods and Materials

Twenty-four patients attended and received two to ten composite build-ups for diastema closure. The restorations were performed separately by grinding and not grinding the enamel on the proximal surfaces on symmetric teeth. A nanofill direct composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) for restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls.

Results

The cumulative success rate of direct composite build-up with ground and unground enamel was 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Six restorations with unground enamel failed due to fracture. No significant difference was found between the restorations with ground enamel and unground enamel with regard to the evaluation criteria.

Conclusion

The 5-year success rates of restorations with ground and unground enamel were excellent. The success rate of restorations with ground enamel was higher than that of restorations with unground enamel. Fracture was the reason for failure in the restorations with unground enamel.

Copyright: 2023
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Flow diagram history of restorations.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Peg-shaped lateral. (A) Before treatment. (B) Clinical appearance after five years. Restoration showing clinically ideal restorations.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, demonstrating the time interval (years).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Diastema closure. (A) Before treatment. (B) Clinical appearance after five years showing marginal discolorations, surface roughness (right central), and fracture (left central).

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Diastema closure. (A) Before treatment. (B) Clinical appearance after five years showing fracture (left lateral).

Figure 9.
Figure 9.

Diastema closure. (A,B) Before treatment. (C,D) Clinical appearance after five years. (C) Showing restorations with clinically ideal restorations (right central, right lateral, left central) (D) Showing fracture (left lateral).

Figure 10.
Figure 10.

Diastema closure. (A) Before treatment. (B) Clinical appearance after five years showing clinically acceptable wear or loss of anatomic form (right canine) and fracture (right central).

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Diastema closure. (A) Before treatment. (B) Clinical appearance after five years. Restorations (right lateral and canine) showing color change and marginal deterioration (right lateral).

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Diastema closure. (A) before treatment. (B) Clinical appearance after five years showing clinically ideal restorations.

Figure 8.
Figure 8.

Diastema closure. (A) Before treatment. (B) Clinical appearance after five years. Restorations showing clinically ideal restorations.

Contributor Notes

*Corresponding author: Beyazıt Campus 34452 Beyazıt, Istanbul, Turkey; e-mail: md.demirci@gmail.com; demirci.md@superonline.com
Accepted: 15 Apr 2023
  • Download PDF