Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
The journal of adhesive dentistry, cilt.24, sa.1, ss.77-86, 2022 (SCI-Expanded)
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using nanohybrid and nanofill composite materials in anterior teeth in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 15 patients with AI aged 14-30 years. During the study, the patients received anterior direct composite laminate veneer restorations using either a nanohybrid (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and Clearfil Universal Bond, Kuraray Noritake) or a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative and Single Bond Universal Adhesive, 3M Oral Care). The restorations were evaluated according to the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and at 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year follow-up periods. RESULTS: The cumulative success rate of anterior restorations was 80.5% for nanohybrid and 92.5% for nanofill composite after 4 years. Eight restorations with nanohybrid and three restorations with nanofill resin composites failed. Ten restorations failed due to fracture; the fracture rate was 12.3%. Statistically significant differences were found between nanohybrid and nanofill composites regarding marginal discoloration and surface texture after 3 years. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were observed with respect to color match after 4 years. CONCLUSION: The use of a nanohybrid or nanofill composite for anterior direct restorations in patients with AI was observed to be satisfactory, based on the rate of ideal and clinically acceptable restorations. The primary reason for restoration failure was fracture. The failure rate of nanohybrid composite restorations was higher than with nanofill composite restorations with respect to survival and marginal adaptation criteria.