Two-year retrospective evaluation of monoshade universal composites in direct veneer and diastema closure restorations

Abstract

© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.Objectives: The aim of this retrospective evaluation was to assess the short-term outcome of two monoshade universal resin composites with high chameleon effect in anterior direct veneer and diastema closure restorations, and to investigate the possible reasons for failure. Material and Methods: Patients subjected to veneer and diastema closure restorations with two monoshade universal resin composites (Essentia Universal Shade; EU, GC Corp., and Omnichroma; OC, Tokuyama) operated between January 2018 and March 2019 were selected for the present retrospective evaluation. A total of 159 composite restorations (78 veneers and 81 diastema closure restorations) performed by a single operator in 44 patients (mean age: 33.6) were included in the study. Two blinded and calibrated examiners performed 1- and 2-year assessments of the restorations with respect to FDI criteria, using medical/clinical history and dental photography records. Data were analyzed using Pearson Chi-square with Continuity Correction, Fisher\"s Exact tests, and Cox regression (a < 0.05). Results: The cumulative overall survival rates of EU and OC restorations were 94.6% (97.3% for the first year) and 88.6% (95.3% for the first year), respectively, with no significant difference from each other (p = 0.316). The cumulative overall survival rates of direct veneer and diastema closure restoration types were 90.2% (95.1% for the first year) and 92.4% (97.4% for the first year), respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.559). The reasons for failure were evaluated as fracture of the restoration, failure in esthetic anatomical form, and color mismatch. All the failed direct veneer restorations were due to fractures (FDI score of 5.4), whereas 5 of 6 failed diastema closure restorations were due to color mismatch (FDI score of 3.4). Regarding the composite materials, there were no significant differences between the success rates of the restoration types (p = 0.442 for EU, p = 1.000 for OC). With respect to the restoration types, there were also no significant differences between the success rates of the resin-based composites (p = 1.000 for direct veneer restorations and p = 0.228 for the diastema closure restorations). In addition, no significant difference was observed between male and female patients regarding the acceptable and unacceptable scores (p = 1.000). Conclusions: The 2-year clinical performance of the two monoshade universal composites in anterior veneer and diastema closure restorations were both considered successful and similar. Despite the lack of shade selection, both monoshade universal composites presented a successful color match. However, the diastema closure restorations might be more prone to color mismatch compared to the veneers over time, while veneer restorations presented more fractures than the diastema closure restorations. Clinical Significance: Monoshade universal composites presented successful short-term clinical outcomes regarding both function and esthetics in anterior direct veneer and diastema closure restorations.