RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the 14-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free 1-step self-etch adhesive (1SEa) compared with that of a 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (3E&Ra). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 267 non-carious cervical lesions in 52 patients were restored with the microhybrid composite Gradia Direct (GC), bonded in random order either with the HEMA-free 1SEa G-Bond (GB; GC) or the 3E&Ra Optibond FL (OFL; Kerr), which is considered the gold-standard E&Ra (control). The restorations were followed over 14 years for retention, marginal adaptation and discoloration, and caries occurrence. Statistical analysis involved a logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations (2-way GEE model). RESULTS: The patient recall rate at 14 years was 63%. In total, 79 restorations (39 GB, 40 OFL) failed because of retention loss (GB: 19.4%, OFL: 19.6%), severe marginal defects, discoloration and/or caries (GB: 21.7%; OFL: 22.5%). The overall clinical success rate was 58.9% and 57.9% for GB and OFL, respectively. The number of restorations with an unacceptable marginal defect (GB: 14.5%; OFL: 19.2%) and deep marginal discoloration (GB: 18.2%; OFL: 13.2%) increased during the last 5 years. No significant difference in overall clinical performance was recorded between the two adhesives (p > 0.05). Changes in the medical health of some patients and recurrence of abrasion/erosion/abfraction increased the failure rate and retention rate. CONCLUSION: After 14 years, restorations bonded with the HEMA-free 1SEa performed as well as those bonded with the 3E&Ra gold standard. Unacceptable marginal deterioration was the main reason for failure, followed by loss of retention.
Asunto(s)
Caries Dental , Humanos , Caries Dental/terapia , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to analyse the use of digital dental radiology in Belgium, by focussing on the use of extraoral and intraoral radiographic techniques, digitalisation and image communication. METHODS: A nationwide survey has been performed amongst Belgian general dentists and dental specialists. Questionnaires were distributed digitally via mailings lists and manually on multiple refresher courses and congresses throughout the country. The overall response rate was 30%. RESULTS: Overall, 94% of the respondents had access to an intraoral radiographic unit, 76% had access to a panoramic unit, 21% has an attached cephalometric arm. One in five Belgian dentists also seem to have direct access to a cone beam CT. 90% of all intraoral radiography unit worked with digital detectors, while this was 91% for panoramic units (with or without cephalometrics). In 70% of the cases, general dental practitioners with a digital intraoral unit used a storage phosphor plate while in 30% of the cases they used sensor technology (charge-coupled device or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor). The most common method for professional image transfer appeared to be email. Finally, 16% of all respondents used a calibrated monitor for image analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The survey indicates that 90% of the respondents, Belgian dentists, make use of digital image techniques. For sharing images, general dental practitioners mainly use methods such as printout and e-mail. The usage of calibrated monitors, however, is not well established yet.