TY - JOUR
T1 - Wear behavior of a microhybrid composite vs. a nanocomposite in the treatment of severe tooth wear patients
T2 - A 5-year clinical study
AU - Ning, K.
AU - Bronkhorst, E.
AU - Bremers, A.
AU - Bronkhorst, H.
AU - van der Meer, W.
AU - Yang, F.
AU - Leeuwenburgh, S.
AU - Loomans, B.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank the researchers and clinicians from the Department of Dentistry ? Restorative Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences for their assistance in this project.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Objective: This study aimed to compare the wear behavior of a microhybrid composite vs. a nanocomposite in patients suffering from severe tooth wear.Methods: A convenience sample of 16 severe tooth wear patients from the Radboud Tooth Wear Project was included. Eight of them were treated with a microhybrid composite (Clearfil APX, Kuraray) and the other eight with a nanocomposite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M). The Direct Shaping by Occlusion (DSO) technique was used for all patients. Clinical records were collected after 1 month (baseline) as well as 1, 3 and 5 years post-treatment. The maximum height loss at specific areas per tooth was measured with Geomagic Qualify software. Intra-observer reliability was tested with paired t-tests, while multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to compare odds ratios (OR) of “large amount of wear”.Results: Intra-observer reliability tests confirmed that two repeated measurements agreed well (p > 0.136). For anterior mandibular teeth, Filtek Supreme showed significantly less wear than Clearfil APX; in maxillary anterior teeth, Clearfil APX showed significantly less wear (OR material = 0.28, OR jaw position = 0.079, p < 0.001). For premolar and molar teeth, Filtek Supreme showed less wear in bearing cusps, whereas Clearfil APX showed less wear in non-bearing cusps (premolar: OR material = 0.42, OR bearing condition = 0.18, p = 0.001; molar: OR material = 0.50, OR bearing condition = 0.14, p < 0.001).Significance: Nanocomposite restorations showed significantly less wear at bearing cusps, whereas microhybrid composite restorations showed less wear at non-bearing cusps and anterior maxillary teeth.
AB - Objective: This study aimed to compare the wear behavior of a microhybrid composite vs. a nanocomposite in patients suffering from severe tooth wear.Methods: A convenience sample of 16 severe tooth wear patients from the Radboud Tooth Wear Project was included. Eight of them were treated with a microhybrid composite (Clearfil APX, Kuraray) and the other eight with a nanocomposite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M). The Direct Shaping by Occlusion (DSO) technique was used for all patients. Clinical records were collected after 1 month (baseline) as well as 1, 3 and 5 years post-treatment. The maximum height loss at specific areas per tooth was measured with Geomagic Qualify software. Intra-observer reliability was tested with paired t-tests, while multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to compare odds ratios (OR) of “large amount of wear”.Results: Intra-observer reliability tests confirmed that two repeated measurements agreed well (p > 0.136). For anterior mandibular teeth, Filtek Supreme showed significantly less wear than Clearfil APX; in maxillary anterior teeth, Clearfil APX showed significantly less wear (OR material = 0.28, OR jaw position = 0.079, p < 0.001). For premolar and molar teeth, Filtek Supreme showed less wear in bearing cusps, whereas Clearfil APX showed less wear in non-bearing cusps (premolar: OR material = 0.42, OR bearing condition = 0.18, p = 0.001; molar: OR material = 0.50, OR bearing condition = 0.14, p < 0.001).Significance: Nanocomposite restorations showed significantly less wear at bearing cusps, whereas microhybrid composite restorations showed less wear at non-bearing cusps and anterior maxillary teeth.
KW - 3D scans
KW - Direct composite restorations
KW - Height loss
KW - Quantitative analysis
KW - Severe tooth wear
KW - Wear behavior
U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2021.09.011
DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2021.09.011
M3 - Article
C2 - 34565582
AN - SCOPUS:85115785611
SN - 0109-5641
VL - 37
SP - 1819
EP - 1827
JO - DENTAL MATERIALS
JF - DENTAL MATERIALS
IS - 12
ER -