Clinical Evaluation of the Effect of Direct and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations In Hypomineralized Permanent Molar Teeth: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this pilot study is to comparative evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of direct and indirect composite resin restorations in hypomineralized first permanent molars. Materials-Methods: A total of 20 hypomineralized first permanent molars in 10 children aged 7-11 were included for the study. Teeth were randomly divided into two groups according to the restoration type to be applied: direct or indirect composite resin restorations. Restored teeth were clinically evaluated at baseline, 6 and 12 months by modified United States Public Health Service USPHS criteria. Mann-Whitney U and Friedmann tests were used for statistical analysis of data. Results: During the 12-month follow-up period, although Alpha and Bravo scores were determined, no Charlie score was observed in both direct and indirect resin restoration groups. According to USPHS criteria scores, for each group, no significant difference was observed between follow-up periods p>0.05 . When the clinical success of direct and indirect composite resin restorations were compared, the scores of marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration and anatomical form of indirect composite resin restorations were observed to be better than direct composite resin restorations; however, this difference was not statistically significant p>0.05 . Conclusion: As a result of this pilot study observed that direct and indirect composite resin restorations in hypomineralized first permanent molars to have similar clinical effectiveness

Keywords

• Composite, Hypomineralization, Indirect composite.

Hipomineralize daimi azı dişlerinde direkt ve indirekt kompozit rezin restorasyonların klinik etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesi: pilot çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu pilot çalışmanın amacı, hipomineralize daimi birinci büyük Azı dişlerine uygulanan direkt ve indirekt kompozit rezin restorasyonların klinik etkinliklerinin karşılaştırmalı değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç-Yöntem: Çalışmamıza yaşları 7-12 arasında değişen 10 çocuğun, kriterlere uygun 20 adet hipomineralize daimi birinci büyük azı dişi dahil edildi. Dişler, uygulanacak restorasyon tipine göre rastgele 2 gruba ayrıldı: direkt veya indirekt kompozit rezin ile restore edilen grup. Restorasyonu tamamlanan dişler, modifiye United States Public Health Service USPHS kriterleri kullanılarak başlangıç, 6. ve 12. aylarda klinik olarak değerlendirildi. Elde edilen verilerin istatistiksel analizinde Mann-Whitney U ve Friedmann testleri kullanıldı. Bulgular: 12 aylık takip periyodu boyunca, hem direkt hem de indirekt rezin restorasyon gruplarında Alfa ve Bravo skoru tespit edilmesine karşın, Charlie skoru hiç gözlenmedi. USPHS kriterlerinin skorları açısından grupların kendi içlerinde takip periyotları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığı saptandı p>0,05 . Direkt ve indirekt kompozit rezin restorasyonların klinik başarısı karşılaştırıldığında, istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık olmasa da, indirekt kompozit rezin restorasyonların kenar adaptasyonu, kenar renklenmesi ve anatomik form skorlamalarının direkt kompozit rezin restorasyonlardan daha iyi olduğu tespit edildi. Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, hipomineralize daimi birinci büyük azı dişlerinde uygulanan direkt ve indirekt kompozit rezin restorasyonların benzer etkinliğe sahip olduğu görülmektedir

Keywords

• hipomineralizasyon, indirekt kompozit, kompozit

References

1. Weerheijm KL, Jälevik B, Alaluusua S. Molar-incisor hypomineralisation. Caries Res 2001; 35: 390-1.
2. Jälevik B, Norén JG. Enamel hypo- mineralization of permanent first molars: a morphological study and survey of possible ae- tiological factors. Int J Paediatr Dent 2000; 10: 278-89.
3. Weerheijm KL. Molar incisor hypo- mineralisation (MIH). Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003; 4: 114-20.
4. Daly D, Waldron JM. Molar incisor hypomineralisation: clinical management of the young patient. J Ir Dent Assoc 2009; 55: 83-6.
5. Lygidakis NA, Wong F, Jälevik B, Vi- errou AM, Alaluusua S, Espelid I. Best Clini- cal Practice Guidance for clinicians dealing with children presenting with Molar-Incisor- Hypomineralisation (MIH): An EAPD Policy Document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11: 75-81.
6. Weerheijm KL, Duggal M, Mejàre I, Papagiannoulis L, Koch G, Martens LC, Hal- lonsten AL. Judgement criteria for molar inci- sor hypomineralisation (MIH) in epidemiolog- ic studies: a summary of the European meeting on MIH held in Athens, 2003. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003; 4: 110-3.
7. Mahoney E, Ismail FS, Kilpatrick N, Swain M. Mechanical properties across hypo- mineralized/hypoplastic enamel of first perma- nent molar teeth. Eur J Oral Sci 2004; 112: 497-502.
8. Leppäniemi A, Lukinmaa PL, Ala- luusua S. Nonfluoride hypomineralizations in the permanent first molars and their impact on the treatment need. Caries Res 2001; 35: 36- 40.

9. Jälevik B, Klingberg GA. Dental treat- ment, dental fear and behaviour management problems in children with severe enamel hy- pomineralization of their permanent first mo- lars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002; 12: 24-32.
10. Jälevik B, Klingberg G, Barregård L, Norén JG. The prevalence of demarcated opac- ities in permanent first molars in a group of Swedish children. Acta Odontol Scand 2001; 59: 255-60.
11. William V, Messer LB, Burrow MF. Molar incisor hypomineralization: review and recommendations for clinical management. Pediatr Dent 2006; 28: 224-32.
12. Mathu-Muju K, Wright JT. Diagnosis and treatment of molar incisor hypomineraliza- tion. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2006; 27:
13. Willmott NS, Bryan RA, Duggal MS. Molar-incisor-hypomineralisation: a literature review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2008; 9: 172- 9.
14. Lygidakis NA. Treatment modalities in children with teeth affected by molar-incisor enamel hypomineralisation (MIH): A system- atic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11: 65-74.
15. Dayangaç B. Kompozit rezin restora- syonlar. Kaçıncı baskı. Ankara: Güneş Kitabe- vi Ltd.Şti; 2000.
16. Van Dijken JW. Direct resin compo- site inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent 2000; 28: 299-306.
17. Gary A. Considerations for the suc- cessful placement of laboratory-processed, in- direct composite restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2003; 24: 43-7.
18. Leinfelder KF. Indirect posterior composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005; 26: 495-503.
19. Schmidseder J, Soderholm KJ. Com- posite inlays. In: Schmidseder J. Color atlas of Dental medicine- aesthetic dentistry, New York: Thieme Publishers, 2000, p.150.
20. Nash R. Composite resin: indirect technique restorations. In: Aschheim KW, Dale BG. Esthetic dentistry: a clinical ap- proach to techniques and materials, Vol 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Publishing, 2001, p. 97-112.
21. Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen- Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite res- torations in posterior teeth. J Prosthest Dent 2000; 84: 289-96.
22. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 2000; 28: 375-82.
23. Cetin AR, Unlu N. One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 620-6.
24. Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris JR, Navarro MF, de Carvalho RM. Di- rect resin composite restorations versus indi- rect composite inlays: one-year results. J Con- temp Dent Pract 2010; 11: 25-32.
25. Feierabend S, Halbleib K, Klaiber B, Hellwig E. Laboratory-made composite resin restorations in children and adolescents with hypoplasia or hypomineralization of teeth. Quintessence Int 2012; 43: 305-11.
26. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980; 30: 347-58.
27. Randall RC, Wilson NH. Clinical test- ing of restorative materials: some historical landmarks. J Dent 1999; 27: 543-50.
28. Sapir S, Shapira J. Clinical solutions for developmental defects of enamel and den- tin in children. Pediatr Dent 2007; 29: 330-6.
29. William V, Burrow MF, Palamara JE, Messer LB. Microshear bond strength of resin composite to teeth affected by molar hypo- mineralization using 2 adhesive systems. Pedi- atr Dent 2006; 28: 233-41.
30. Hiraishi N, Yiu CK, King NM. Effect of acid etching time on bond strength of an etch-and-rinse adhesive to primary tooth den- tine affected by amelogenesis imperfecta. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18: 224-30.
31. Lygidakis NA, Chaliasou A, Siounas G. Evaluation of composite restorations in hy- pomineralised permanent molars: a four year clinical study. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003; 4: 143-8.
32. Fayle SA. Molar incisor hypomineral- isation: restorative management. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003; 4: 121-6.
33. Heijs SC, Dietz W, Norén JG, Blanksma NG, Jälevik B. Morphology and chemical composition of dentin in permanent first molars with the diagnose MIH. Swed Dent J 2007; 31: 155-64.
34. Venezie RD, Vadiakas G, Christensen JR, Wright JT. Enamel pretreatment with sodi- um hypochlorite to enhance bonding in hy- pocalcified amelogenesis imperfecta: case re- port and SEM analysis. Pediatr Dent 1994; 16:
35. Wright JT. The etch-bleach-seal tech- nique for managing stained enamel defects in young permanent incisors. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 249-52.
36. Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7: 71-9.
37. Huth KC, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R, Manhart J. Clinical study of indirect com- posite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years. J Dent 2011; 39: 478-88.