Clinical Performance of Posterior Indirect Resin Composite Restorations with the Proximal Box Elevation Technique: A Prospective Clinical Trial up to 3 Years.

PURPOSE: The study evaluated the clinical performance of partial indirect resin composite (PIRC) restorations with "proximal box elevation" (PBE) placed in molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients received 80 posterior PIRC (SR Nexco, Ivoclar Vivadent) restorations. Large posterior defects with cuspal loss and deep cervical margins were included in the study. PBE was performed prior to preparation and impression making. Two independent observers evaluated the restorations using the FDI criteria (scores 1-5) for esthetic, functional, and biological properties. Patients were recalled at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. Overall success rates were calculated (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and compared (log-rank tests) according to baseline variables. The impact of the baseline variables on the failure of the restorations was analyzed (multiple proportional Cox regression). RESULTS: Seventy-nine (98.7%), 69 (88.4%), 66 (92.9%), 44 (86.2%) and 45 (91.8%) PIRCs completed their follow up at baseline, 6 months, and 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively. In total, 10 failures were observed: 5 with partial loss, 4 with material chipping, and one with secondary caries, yielding an overall success rate of 87.5% and a survival rate of 93.8%, with a mean observation time of 26.5 ± 13.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: PIRCs with PBE demonstrated a high survival rate and satisfactory esthetic properties. Failure was less likely for PIRC restorations with partial cuspal coverage (onlay) compared to full cuspal coverage (overlay).

Selective removal to soft dentine or selective removal to firm dentine for deep caries lesions in permanent posterior teeth: a randomized controlled clinical trial up to 2 years.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare selective removal to soft dentin (SRSD) and selective removal to firm dentin (SRFD) in permanent teeth. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the success rates of the two caries removal techniques. The secondary outcome of the study was to investigate whether or not calcium silicate-based material (CS) had an effect on the success rate of the treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2018 and March 2020, patients with deep caries lesions were invited to participate in the study. Posterior teeth (N = 165) with primary caries lesion radiographically extending ¾ of dentin and positive response to cold test were randomly selected. A total of 134 participants meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized to SRSD and SRFD (control) groups. After the caries removal procedure, teeth with exposed pulps were assigned to the pulp exposure (PE) group, and the SRSD group was further divided into test 1 (with CS) and test 2 groups (without CS). Success was defined as a positive response to the cold test, a negative response to percussion, the absence of pain, an abscess, a fistula, and periapical alterations. Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact tests, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and the log-rank tests were performed for comparisons between groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the success rates of test 1 (100%) and test 2 (93.5%) groups, whereas the proportion of success in control (82.4%) and PE (84%) groups were significantly lower when compared with test groups (p = 0.024; p < 0.05) at the end of 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: SRSD had a higher success rate when compared to SRFD to treat deep carious lesions after 2 years of follow-up. The use of CS material after SRSD as a liner had no effect on the treatment outcome. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SRSD with good coronal sealing might be recommended without CS application for the treatment of deep caries lesions in permanent teeth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number NCT04052685 (08/09/2019).