CLINICAL EVALUATION OF CERVICAL RESTORATIONS OF TEETH

Udod O. A., Afonina V. V

DENTISTRY

Scentific article

The restoration of teeth with carious and non-carious lesions of hard tissues is commonly provided with light-cured composites and glass ionomers. The cervical lesions are accepted to be the most difficult for restoration due to their localization. The dental restoration of cervical lesions with light-cured composites is not always of high quality. There is a high risk of secondary caries, as well as a decrease in the duration of their functioning. The cervical lesions are also restored with glass ionomer cements. The aim of the study was the comparative clinical assessment of the state of cervical restorations of teeth carried out according to the direct method with light-cured composite materials and glass ionomer cements. Object and methods. The state of 178 direct restorations on the vestibular surface of the anterior and posterior teeth with cervical carious lesions has been evaluated in 45 persons, namely, 24 women (53.3%) and 21 men (46.7%). The age of the patients ranged from 25 to 56 years. Among the examined cervical restorations, 137 (77.0% of the total) were carried out with light-cured composites, in particular, nanofilled and universal microhybrid lightcured composites; glass ionomer cements were used in 41 restorations (23.0%). The state of the direct restorations was assessed visually and instrumentally according to the number of USPHS clinical criteria, in particular, “marginal fit”, “marginal staining”, “color matching”, “surface roughness”, “secondary caries”, “integrity of anatomical shape”, while the latter criterion was accepted as complication in the form of partial or complete absence of restoration. The results and discussion. Among 178 examined cervical restorations with maximum lifetime 8 years, there were 5 restorations (2.8% of the total number of restorations) in 2 persons (4.4% of the patients examined), including 4 restorations (2.2%) with light-cured composites and 1 restoration (0.6%) with glass ionomer cement. All restorations were localized in the cervical area of the posterior teeth. The average lifetime of cervical restorations was 3.2 ± 0.3 years. The excellent state was observed in 29 restorations (16.3% of the total number of restorations), among which 22 light-cured composite restorations (16.1% of the total number of restorations with light-cured composite materials) and 7 glass ionomer restorations (17.1% of the total number of restorations with glass ionomer cements). Various disorders were detected in 149 cases (83.7% of the total number of examined cervical restorations), including 115 restorations (83.9%) with light-cured composites and 34 restorations (82.9%) with glass ionomer cements. The most common complications in cervical restorations, regardless of the material, were marginal staining on the border of restoration and teeth enamel − 128 (71.9% of the total number of examined restorations), further, in descending order, disorders of marginal fit − 105 restorations (59 0%). The color mismatch was determined in 97 restorations (54.5%), the surface roughness of restorative material − in 78 cervical restorations (43.8%). Secondary caries was diagnosed next to 23 restorations (12.9%), which most often affected the gingival wall − 22 restorations (12.4%). The integrity of restoration was disturbed in 34 cases (19.1%), namely, in 29 restorations (16.3%) − partially, 5 restorations (2.8%) were absent. As a rule, there were no cervical restorations with only one lesion, most often there were two or more. Conclusions. The overwhelming majority of light-cured composite and glass-ionomer cervical restorations of teeth have various disorders, the most common of which are marginal staining, marginal fit disorder, color mismatch. Certain differences in the structure of complications were determined depending on light-cured composites and glass ionomer cements used in restorations. The average lifetime of cervical restorations is a little over 3 years.

: teeth, cervical areas, restoration, light-cured composites, glass ionomer cements, clinical assessment

1.  David C Sarrett. Restorative Materials. ADA Professional Product Review. Spring. 2010;5(2).
2.  Udod OA, Khachaturova KM. Osoblyvosti tekhniky svitlovoho vplyvu na svetootverzhdaemye materialy v riznykh klinichnykh sytuatsiyakh. Ukrayins’kyy stomatolohichnyy al’manakh. 2010;2(2):121-2. [in Ukrainian].
3. Yudina NA, Ishin NN, Hrintsevich IB, Manyuk ON. Metodyka zastosuvannya fotopolimeryzatsiyni prystroyiv pry restavratsiyi tverdykh tkanyn zubiv: instruktsiya iz zastosuvannya №065-0609: zatv. MOZ RB 17.09.2009. Mins’k: BelMAPO; 2009. 11 s. [in Ukrainian].
4. Fylypchyk IS, Danylevych OV, Zhukova OO. Pomylky i uskladnennya pry vykorystanni fotopolimernykh plombuval’nykh materialiv i metody yikh usunennya. Ukr. stomatolohiyi. 2008;2:43. [in Ukrainian].
5. Radlins’kyy S. Polimeryzatsiynoho stres v ob’yemnykh restavratsiyakh. Suchasna stomatolohiya. 2010;4:34-9. [in Russiаn].
6. Bidenko NV. Stekloionomernyie tsementyi v stomatologii. KnigaPlyus, 1999. 69 s. [in Russian].
7.  Nikolaev AI. Prakticheskaya terapevticheskaya stomatologiya: ucheb. posobie. MEDpress-inform, 2017. 928 s. [in Russian].
8. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. International Dental Journal. 1980;30:347-58.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 2 Part 1 (150), 2019 year, 324-327 pages, index UDK 616.314-071-74

10.29254/2077-4214-2019-2-1-150-324-327