The effectiveness of direct versus indirect restoration techniques following canal therapy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20242686Keywords:
Endodontic therapy, Direct restorations, Indirect restorations, Dental aesthetics, Cost-effectivenessAbstract
The restoration of endodontically treated teeth is a critical aspect of dental practice, with the choice between direct and indirect restoration techniques being central to optimizing clinical outcomes. Direct restorations, such as composite resins, offer advantages in terms of cost, time efficiency, and preservation of tooth structure. However, their long-term performance, particularly in posterior teeth, may be compromised by issues such as marginal leakage, wear, and discoloration. Indirect restorations, including crowns, onlays, and inlays, provide enhanced durability, fracture resistance, and aesthetic outcomes, particularly for teeth that have undergone significant structural loss. These restorations, often made from ceramics or metals, offer superior longevity but come with higher costs and longer treatment times. The aesthetic performance of restorations plays a significant role in patient satisfaction. While direct restorations allow for immediate aesthetic adjustments and are generally more affordable, they may suffer from discoloration and wear over time. Indirect restorations, particularly porcelain-based options, offer better color stability and natural appearance, making them a preferred choice for patients with high aesthetic demands. Cost-effectiveness is another critical factor influencing clinical decision-making. While direct restorations are more affordable initially, their long-term cost-effectiveness may be compromised by the need for repairs or replacements. Indirect restorations, despite their higher upfront cost, often prove to be more economical in the long run due to their durability and reduced need for maintenance. The decision between direct and indirect restoration techniques should be individualized, considering factors such as tooth location, the extent of damage, aesthetic requirements, and financial constraints. A comprehensive evaluation of these factors, along with clear communication with the patient, is essential for achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Indirect restorations generally offer better long-term performance, particularly for heavily compromised teeth, while direct restorations remain a viable option for cases where cost and time efficiency are prioritized.
References
Hickel R, Heidemann D, Staehle H, Minnig P, Wilson N. Direct composite restorations: Extendes use in anterior and posterior situations. Clin Oral Investig. 2004;8(2).
Raigrodski AJ, Yu A, Chiche GJ, Hochstedler J, Mancl LA, Mohamed SE. Clinical efficacy of veneered zirconium dioxide-based posterior partial fixed dental prostheses: five-year results. J Prosthetic Dentistry. 2012;108(4):214-22.
Naumann M, Koelpin M, Beuer F, Meyer-Lueckel H. 10-year survival evaluation for glass-fiber–supported postendodontic restoration: a prospective observational clinical study. J Endodont. 2012;38(4):432-5.
Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ. Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthetic Dentistry. 2002;87(3):256-63.
Manhart J. Direct cusp replacement in the molar region using a thermoviscous bulk-fill composite restorative material–a clinical case report. Int Dent–Afr Ed. 2020;9:22-33.
Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthetic Dentistry. 2005;93(2):164-70.
Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Materials. 2012;28(1):87-101.
Cetin A, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Operative dentistry. 2013;38(2):E31-41.
Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M. Porcelain laminate veneers: 6-to 12-year clinical evaluation--a retrospective study. Int J Periodont Restorative Dentistry. 2005;25(1).
Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, et al. Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Materials. 2015;31(10):1214-24.
van Dijken JW. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up. J Dentistry. 2010;38(6):469-74.
Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. J Dentistry. 2000;28(3):163-77.
Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations-a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(5):407-31.
Opdam N, Van De Sande F, Bronkhorst E, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943-9.
Schwartz RS, Fransman R. Adhesive dentistry and endodontics: materials, clinical strategies and procedures for restoration of access cavities: a review. J Endodont. 2005;31(3):151-65.