What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare the five-year clinical performance and survival rates of direct versus indirect resin composite restorations in premolars requiring cusp replacement.

October 23, 2013Journal of Dental Research

Randomized Control Trial of Composite Cuspal Restorations

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

WFWillem Fennis RKR.H. Kuijs FRF.J.M. Roeters

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial demonstrates equivalent five-year survival between direct and indirect composite cuspal restorations in premolars, suggesting direct techniques are a viable long-term option.

Key Points

To compare the five-year clinical performance and survival rates of direct versus indirect resin composite restorations in premolars requiring cusp replacement.
Randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN29200848) conducted in 157 patients with 176 maxillary premolars presenting Class II cavities and one missing cusp.
Restorations were randomly allocated to either direct (n=92) or indirect (n=84) resin composite placement performed by two operators under a standardized protocol.
Clinical performance was evaluated over a follow-up period of at least 4.5 years, tracking both reparable and complete failures.
Kaplan-Meier five-year survival rates for reparable failure were 89.9% (SE 0.34%) for direct versus 83.2% (SE 0.42%) for indirect restorations (p = .23).
Five-year survival rates for complete failure were 91.2% (SE 0.32%) for direct versus 83.2% (SE 0.42%) for indirect restorations (p = .15).
Overall survival across all restorations reached 86.6% (SE 0.27%) for reparable failure and 87.2% (SE 0.27%) for complete failure, with adhesive failure identified as the predominant failure mode.

Cite This Study

Fennis et al. (2013) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8877dc4c82be800eeb6441 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513510946

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

October 23, 2013Journal of Dental Research

Randomized Control Trial of Composite Cuspal Restorations

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

WFWillem Fennis RKR.H. Kuijs FRF.J.M. Roeters

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial demonstrates equivalent five-year survival between direct and indirect composite cuspal restorations in premolars, suggesting direct techniques are a viable long-term option.

Key Points

To compare the five-year clinical performance and survival rates of direct versus indirect resin composite restorations in premolars requiring cusp replacement.
Randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN29200848) conducted in 157 patients with 176 maxillary premolars presenting Class II cavities and one missing cusp.
Restorations were randomly allocated to either direct (n=92) or indirect (n=84) resin composite placement performed by two operators under a standardized protocol.
Clinical performance was evaluated over a follow-up period of at least 4.5 years, tracking both reparable and complete failures.
Kaplan-Meier five-year survival rates for reparable failure were 89.9% (SE 0.34%) for direct versus 83.2% (SE 0.42%) for indirect restorations (p = .23).
Five-year survival rates for complete failure were 91.2% (SE 0.32%) for direct versus 83.2% (SE 0.42%) for indirect restorations (p = .15).
Overall survival across all restorations reached 86.6% (SE 0.27%) for reparable failure and 87.2% (SE 0.27%) for complete failure, with adhesive failure identified as the predominant failure mode.

Cite This Study

Fennis et al. (2013) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8877dc4c82be800eeb6441 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513510946

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark