Clinical evaluation of lithium disilicate versus indirect resin composite partial posterior restorations - A 7.8-year retrospective study

Edina Lempel; Sarolta Gyulai; Bálint Viktor Lovász; Sára Jeges; József Szalma

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.017

Clinical evaluation of lithium disilicate versus indirect resin composite partial posterior restorations - A 7.8-year retrospective study

Dent Mater. 2023 Dec;39(12):1095-1104. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.017. Epub 2023 Oct 10.

Authors

Edina Lempel¹, Sarolta Gyulai², Bálint Viktor Lovász³, Sára Jeges⁴, József Szalma⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Pécs Medical School, Tüzér Street 1, Pécs 7623, Hungary. Electronic address: lempel.edina@pte.hu.
² Department of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Pécs Medical School, Tüzér Street 1, Pécs 7623, Hungary; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Pécs Medical School, Tüzér Street 1, Pécs 7623, Hungary.
³ Oral and Maxillofacial Department, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester Royal Infirmary Hospital, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom.
⁴ Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Vörösmarty M. Street 4, Pécs 7621, Hungary.
⁵ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Pécs Medical School, Tüzér Street 1, Pécs 7623, Hungary.

PMID: 37821330
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.017

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate retrospectively the longevity of lithium disilicate ceramic (LidiSi) vs. laboratory-processed resin-based composite (RBC) inlay/onlay/overlay restorations and risk factors associated with restoration deficiencies and failures.

Methods: Patients (n = 91) receiving LidiSi (73.1%) and RBC (36.9%) inlays/onlays/overlays between 2007 and 2017 were selected. The restorations were evaluated using the modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. The survival of the restorations was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. Factors affecting the occurrence of deficiencies were examined by logistic regression analysis. This was performed with the use of the Generalized Estimating Equation model including Repeated measurements (GEER), with the consideration that the same patient had several teeth in the sample. Risk estimation was conducted for each evaluated criterion (p < 0.05).

Results: The survival of LidiSi and RBC restorations were 96.8% and 84.9%, respectively after a mean observation period of 7.8 ± 3.3 years. The annual failure rate was 0.2% for LidiSi and 1.0% for RBC. The probability of survival was above 98% for both restorations in the first 6 years, however, it dropped to 60% for RBC by the end of the 15th year. For both materials the reasons for failure included secondary caries, restoration fracture, and endodontic complication. In addition, LidiSi also failed due to tooth fracture, while RBC due to marginal gap formation and loss of retention. Among the evaluated risk factors, material of restoration (OR=6.8, CI_95%:3.1-14.9), oral hygiene (OR=8.0, CI_95%: 2.9-22.1], and bruxism (OR=1.9, CI_95%: 1.1-3.3) showed a significant impact on the evaluated criteria.

Significance: LidiSi and RBC restorations showed similarly excellent 6-year survival, however, in the long term significantly more failures should be expected for RBCs.

Keywords: Clinical performance; Indirect restoration; Lithium disilicate; Resin composite.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Ceramics
Composite Resins
Dental Materials
Dental Porcelain*
Dental Restoration Failure*
Humans
Inlays
Retrospective Studies

Substances

lithia disilicate
Dental Porcelain
Composite Resins
Dental Materials