The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up.

Abstract

To assess the clinical performance of restorations with ground and unground enamel for diastema closure. Twenty-four patients attended and received two to ten composite build-ups for diastema closure. The restorations were performed separately by grinding and not grinding the enamel on the proximal surfaces on symmetric teeth. A nanofill direct composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) for restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls. The cumulative success rate of direct composite build-up with ground and unground enamel was 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Six restorations with unground enamel failed due to fracture. No significant difference was found between the restorations with ground enamel and unground enamel with regard to the evaluation criteria. The 5-year success rates of restorations with ground and unground enamel were excellent. The success rate of restorations with ground enamel was higher than that of restorations with unground enamel. Fracture was the reason for failure in the restorations with unground enamel.