To compare the clinical performance of direct and indirect cusp covering restorations in endodontically treated molars (ETMs). Eighteen ETMs in sixteen patients were randomly assigned into one of the two study groups:Group 1 (SFCRs) direct composite restorations with a short fiber-reinforced base, and Group 2 (GCEs) indirect glass-ceramic endocrowns. Eleven teeth were allocated to Group 1 and seven teeth to Group 2. Restorations were prepared in the student clinic between November 2012 and January 2015, and were evaluated at baseline and after 4.0 years according to modified USPHS criteria. The number of visits required for fabrication and maintenance of restorations were also compared. Two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the differences between the groups (p=0.05). One SFCR and one GCE were lost due to secondary caries and endodontic complications, resulting in a 4-year survival rate of 90.9% and 85.7% respectively. Two SFCRs required minor grinding and polishing due to chipping or gloss loss, and two SFCRs needed repair due to secondary caries or loss of proximal contact. One GCE required occlusal adjustment. GCEs showed smoother surface texture and better-preserved anatomic morphology. SFCRs required more maintenance, were simpler to produce, needed usually one visit and repairs were easier to perform.
Keywords: Crown; Dental Restoration Failure; Endocrown; Follow-Up Studies; Molar; Resin Composite.
Copyright© 2022 Dennis Barber Ltd.