Open AccessComposite restorations placed in non‐carious cervical lesions—Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable?
Author(s) -
Lührs AnneKatrin,
JackerGuhr Silke,
Günay Hüsamettin,
Herrmann Peggy
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical and experimental dental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.464
H-Index - 9
ISSN - 2057-4347
DOI - 10.1002/cre2.310
Subject(s) - dentin , enamel paint , dentistry , materials science , bevel , groove (engineering) , orthodontics , medicine , structural engineering , engineering , metallurgy
The purpose of this in‐vivo study was to evaluate the clinical performance of restorations placed in non‐carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), using different cavity preparation designs, after 7.7 years. A total of 85 NCCLs with coronal margins in enamel and cervical margins in dentin were randomly assigned to the following treatment protocols: dentin surface cleaning, dentin surface roughening with round bur plus flowable composite, dentin surface roughening/cervical groove preparation with round bur, dentin surface roughening/cervical groove preparation with round bur plus flowable composite. After enamel beveling and selective enamel etching, the defects were restored with composite. The restorations were assessed by two independent, calibrated and blinded investigators, using modified USPHS criteria. At 7 years (7.7 (± 0.35)), a total of 64 restorations (75.3%) were available for follow‐up examination. The total retention rate, irrespective of the test groups, was 82.8%. Restorations placed without any preparation showed the highest loss rate (27.8%). Esthetic appearance, marginal adaptation, anatomic form and marginal discoloration did not differ significantly between the groups. Composites are long‐term stable materials for restoring NCCLs. Restorations placed without any dentin preparation (cavity cleaning only) showed the highest loss rate.