A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites. | LitMetric

Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites.

J Dent

Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands.

Published: September 2012

Objectives: This randomized, split-mouth clinical study evaluated the survival rate of direct laminate veneers made of two resin-composite materials.

Methods: A total of 23 patients (mean age: 52.4 years old) received 96 direct composite laminate veneers using two micro-hybrid composites in combination with two adhesive resins (Ena-Bond-Enamel HFO: n=48, Clearfil SE Bond-Miris2: n=48). Enamel was selectively etched with 38% H(3)PO(4) for 30s, rinsed 30s and the corresponding adhesive resin was applied accordingly. Existing resin composite restorations in good conditions (small or big) were not removed but conditioned using silica coating (CoJet) and silanized (ESPE-Sil). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and thereafter every 6 months. Additional qualitative analysis was performed using modified USPHS criteria.

Results: Mean observation period was 41.3 months. Altogether, 12 absolute failures were observed [survival rate: 87.5%] (Kaplan-Meier). The survival rates with the two resin composites did not show significant differences [Enamel HFO: 81.2%, Miris2: 93.8%] (p>0.05). The presence of existing composite restorations on the prepared teeth did not affect the survival rate significantly (intact teeth: 100%, small restorations: 90.6%, big restorations: 82.7%) (p>0.05). Surface roughness and marginal discolouration were the main qualitative deteriorations observed until the final recall. Secondary caries and endodontic complications did not occur in any of the teeth.

Conclusion: Early findings of this clinical study with the two micro-hybrid composite laminate veneers showed similar survival rate and their clinical performance was not significantly influenced when bonded onto intact teeth or onto teeth with existing restorations with the protocol applied.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.05.010DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

laminate veneers
16
survival rate
12
split-mouth clinical
8
direct laminate
8
veneers micro-hybrid
8
resin composites
8
clinical study
8
composite laminate
8
composite restorations
8
intact teeth
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!