Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions|
Medeiros, Fabianna da Conceição Dantas de; Santos, Marquiony Marques; Araújo, Isaac Jordão de Souza & Lima, Isabela Pinheiro Cavalcanti
Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of a composite resin (CR) and a resin-modified glassionomer
cement (RMGIC) for the treatment of abfraction lesions.
Methods: Thirty patients with
abfraction lesions in at least two premolar teeth were selected and invited to participate in this
study. All restorations were made within the same clinical time frame. One tooth was restored with
CR Z100TM (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the other was restored with RMGIC VitremerTM (3M).
The restorations were assessed immediately and 1, 6 and 12 months after the restoration, using
modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration,
wear, retention, secondary caries and hypersensitivity. The statistical analysis was based on
Friedman ANOVA test and Mann-Whitney test, considering p<0.05 for statistical significance.
Results: Both materials demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after one year. In the
individual analysis of each material, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the criteria
marginal integrity and wear, for both CR and RMGIC. RMGIC exhibited more damage one year
after the restoration. Comparing both materials, it was found a significant difference only for
marginal discoloration, while the RMGIC restorations showed the worst prognosis after a year of
evaluation. There was no significant difference in the number of retentions, caries or hypersensitivity
between CR and RMGIC.
Conclusions: It was concluded that CR exhibited the best clinical
performance according to the cost-effectiveness and evaluation criteria used in this study.
composite resins; glass ionomer cements; tooth wear