Clinical evaluation of subgingival open sandwich restorations: 3-year results of a randomized double-blind trial

被引:2
|
作者
Ismail, Hoda S. [1 ]
Ali, Ashraf I. [1 ]
El. Mehesen, Rabab [1 ]
Garcia-Godoy, Franklin [2 ,3 ]
Mahmoud, Salah H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mansoura Univ, Fac Dent, Conservat Dent Dept, Algomhoria St,POB 35516, Mansoura 35931, Aldakhlia, Egypt
[2] Univ Tennessee, Hlth Sci Ctr, Coll Dent, Dept Biosci Res, Memphis, TN USA
[3] Forsyth Inst, Cambridge, MA USA
关键词
clinical study; open sandwich technique; periodontal health; subgingival cervical margin; CERVICAL MARGIN RELOCATION; COMPOSITE; BULK; PERFORMANCE; ELEVATION; CAVITIES;
D O I
10.1111/jerd.13158
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
ObjectivesTo provide a 3-year follow-up of previously treated patients to assess and compare the periodontal responses and clinical performance of proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations.Materials and MethodsNinety-five adults participated in the study, with a combined total of 120 compound Class II cavities. These cavities had gingival margins located below the CEJ. Four different restorative materials were used to elevate the dentin/cementum gingival margins of the cavities: resin-modified glass ionomer, glass hybrid, flowable bulk-fill composite, or ion-releasing material, which were then completed with the same overlaying composite. Different periodontal and clinical evaluations, based on the criteria set by the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, were performed at different time intervals, including baseline, 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years.ResultsThe type of base material did not affect the periodontal evaluations. There were no statistically significant differences between different time intervals or base material groups in any of the evaluated FDI parameters. However, the ion-releasing material scored significantly worse in the radiographic evaluation than any of the other groups.ConclusionsAll tested materials are suitable for proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations, as long as the restoration/tooth margin is at least 2-mm away from the bone crest.Clinical SignificanceClinicians can confidently choose any of the tested materials for proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations, as they have shown good outcomes from both periodontal and clinical perspectives.
引用
收藏
页码:573 / 587
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Periodontal Evaluation of Subgingival Open Sandwich Restorations: 2-Year Results of a Randomized Double-Blind Trial
    Ismail, Hoda S.
    Ali, Ashraf I.
    El Mehesen, Rabab
    Garcia-Godoy, Franklin
    Mahmoud, Salah H.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2022, 44 (02) : 153 - 165
  • [2] Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial
    Isabel Cristina Olegário
    Daniela Hesse
    Fausto Medeiros Mendes
    Clarissa Calil Bonifácio
    Daniela Prócida Raggio
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019, 23 : 1761 - 1770
  • [3] Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial
    Olegario, Isabel Cristina
    Hesse, Daniela
    Mendes, Fausto Medeiros
    Bonifacio, Clarissa Calil
    Raggio, Daniela Procida
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2019, 23 (04) : 1761 - 1770
  • [4] Cardiovascular safety profile of pioglitazone vs glyburide: Results from a 3-year, randomized, double-blind trial
    Perez, Alfonso
    Spanheimer, Robert
    Kupfer, Stuart
    Khan, Mehmood
    DIABETES, 2006, 55 : A461 - A461
  • [5] Evaluation of Packable and Conventional Hybrid Resin Composites in Class I Restorations: Three-year Results of a Randomized, Double-blind and Controlled Clinical Trial
    Shi, L.
    Wang, X.
    Zhao, Q.
    Zhang, Y.
    Zhang, L.
    Ren, Y.
    Chen, Z.
    OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, 2010, 35 (01) : 11 - 19
  • [6] Effects of pioglitazone vs glyburide on markers of liver safety: Results from a 3-year, randomized, double-blind trial
    Spanheimer, Robert
    Perez, Alfonso
    Kupfer, Stuart
    Law, Ron
    DIABETES, 2006, 55 : A75 - A75
  • [7] Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial
    Matos, Thalita de Paris
    Perdigao, Jorge
    De Paula, Eloisa
    Coppla, Fabiana
    Hass, Viviane
    Scheffer, Rafael F.
    Reis, Alessandra
    Loguercio, Alessandro D.
    DENTAL MATERIALS, 2020, 36 (11) : 1474 - 1485
  • [8] Levetiracetam for partial seizures - Results of a double-blind, randomized clinical trial
    Cereghino, JJ
    Biton, V
    Abou-Khalil, B
    Dreifuss, F
    Gauer, LJ
    Leppik, I
    NEUROLOGY, 2000, 55 (02) : 236 - 242
  • [9] THE COMPARATIVE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CARBAMAZEPINE VERSUS LITHIUM - A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND 3-YEAR TRIAL IN 83 PATIENTS
    PLACIDI, GF
    LENZI, A
    LAZZERINI, F
    CASSANO, GB
    AKISKAL, HS
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, 1986, 47 (10) : 490 - 494
  • [10] A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in Class II restorations
    Wucher, M
    Grobler, SR
    Senekal, PJC
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2002, 15 (04): : 274 - 278