Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta - Anterior Restorations.

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.

Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Short Glass-fiber-reinforced Composite in Endodontically Treated Teeth: 3-year Results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of direct posterior composite restorations with and without short glass-fiber (SGF) reinforced composite in endodontically treated teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients (mean age 32.5 years) were included in the study and two molars of each patient received endodontic treatment. After endodontic treatment, one tooth was restored with G-aenial Bond/fiber-reinforced composite (everX Posterior GC) using a microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior), and the other tooth was restored with G-aenial Bond/microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior). The modified USPHS criteria were used to evaluate the restorations at baseline, 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-ups. RESULTS: The success rate of the everX Posterior and G-aenial Posterior restorations after 3 years was 78.3% and 91.3%, respectively. Five everX Posterior restorations and two G-aenial Posterior restorations failed. Based on the criteria used in this study, no significant differences between the two restorations were found at any evaluation time. CONCLUSION: All restorations showed acceptable clinical performance regarding all evaluation criteria, apart from the failed restorations. The main cause of restoration failure was restoration fracture. The failure rate of everX Posterior restorations was higher than G-aenial Posterior restorations.