Clinical evaluation of direct esthetic restorations in cervical abrasion/erosion lesions: one-year results.
One hundred sixteen cervical abrasion/erosion lesions were restored with one of the following techniques: (1) glass-ionomer cement, (2) composite resin with a dentinal bonding agent, or (3) composite resin with a glass-ionomer cement liner and a dentinal bonding agent. The restorations were assessed at baseline and at 6 months and 1 year postrestoration for retention, caries, color match, marginal staining, and surface texture. No statistically significant differences were found in retention, caries, color match, or marginal staining. A statistically significant difference was found with regard to surface texture: glass-ionomer cement restorations demonstrated a rougher surface than did the composite resin restorations. A substantial number of restorations composed of composite resin with a dentinal bonding agent demonstrated a color shift towards mismatch when evaluated at 6 months. This difference was not significant at the 1-year followup.
Powell
L V
LV
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, School of Dentistry, Seattle.
Gordon
G E
GE
Johnson
G H
GH
D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003736:Dental Cavity Lining; D003738:Dental Cements; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D004955:Esthetics, Dental; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008298:Maleates; D008422:Materials Testing; D019279:Resin Cements; D013499:Surface Properties; D014072:Tooth Abrasion / Q000628:therapy; D014077:Tooth Erosion / Q000628:therapy
D003188:Composite Resins; D003738:Dental Cements; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008298:Maleates; D019279:Resin Cements; C067790:Vitrabond; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C040964:Ketac-Fil; C041330:Scotchbond