Aim: This randomized controlled clinical study aimed to compare direct composite resin restorations and Computer Aided Design-Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD-CAM) supported inlay or onlay restorations in young permanent molar teeth with hypomineralization. The main questions aim to answer are: * The clinical success rate of CAD-CAM supported restorations * The highest clinical success rate for restoring hypomineralized teeth. Materials and method: Children aged 6-14 years old without any systemic conditions with 32 first and second hypomineralized permanent molar teeth were included in the study. Patients were randomly distributed into 2 groups as direct composite resin restorations and CAD-CAM supported inlay or onlay restorations. All restored teeth were evaluated clinically and radiographically for 24-months. Statistical significance was accepted as p\<0.05.
After randomization and local anesthesia administration, caries removal and preparation were completed under rubber-dam isolation. After preparation, 60 seconds of orthophosphoric acid, 60 seconds of 5% sodium hypochlorite and 30 seconds of orthophosphoric acid steps were applied before bonding agent and composite resin restorations. On the other hand, the preparation was completed by making a bevel on the enamel surfaces and a nanohybrid ceramic material used for the manufacturing CAD-CAM supported inlay or onlay restorations.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
22
Comparison of composite resin and CAD-CAM supported restorations for hypomineralized molar teeth in children
Başkent University
Ankara, Cankaya, Turkey (Türkiye)
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria- Anatomic form)
Anatomic form was examined by inspection at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria-Surface roughness)
Surface roughness was examined by inspection and probing at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria-Marginal adaptation)
Marginal adaptation was examined by inspection and probing at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria-Marginal discoloration)
Marginal discoloration was examined by inspection at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria-Retention)
Retention was examined by inspection and probing at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria-Color stability)
Color stability was examined by inspection at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria-Secondary caries)
Secondary caries was examined by inspection and probing at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Clinical evaluation (Modified USPHS criteria-Proximal contact)
Proximal contact was examined by inspection and probing at 3,6,12,18, and 24 months.
Time frame: 24 months
Radiographical evaluation (Lamina dura)
Lamina dura continuity was evaluated by periapical radiographs taken at 6, 12, 18, and 24-months.
Time frame: 24 months
Radiographical evaluation (Change in inter-root trabeculation continuity)
Change in inter-root trabeculation continuity was evaluated by periapical radiographs taken at 6, 12, 18, and 24-months.
Time frame: 24 months
Radiographical evaluation (Radiolucent area development)
Radiolucent area development in the inter-root area was evaluated by periapical radiographs taken at 6, 12, 18, and 24-months.
Time frame: 24 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.