Glass hybrid versus composite for non-carious cervical lesio
Now open: Certificate Course in Management of Covid-19 by Govt. Of Gujarat and PlexusMDKnow more...Now open: Certificate Course in Management of Covid-19 by Govt. Of Gujarat and PlexusMDKnow more...
Within this trial, survival was not significantly different between glass hybrid (GH) and resin composite restorations (RC) to restore sclerotic NCCLs. As GH was significantly less costly both initially and long-term than RC, using RC was only cost-effective for payers willing to invest high additional expenses per minimal survival gains.

This study compared survival, restoration quality, and costs of glass hybrid (GH) and resin composite restorations (RC) of sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions.

This is a cluster-randomized trial with 175 sNCCLs were randomized to receive GH or RC. Restorations were placed without mechanical cavity preparation and followed for a mean of 36 months. Restoration quality was re-evaluated at 1-, 18- and 36-months using FDI criteria. Survival was assessed using multi-level Cox-regression analysis. Costs were estimated from a payer’s perspective in Germany.

--88 patients were treated; 43 received GH, 45 RC. 17? GH and 19 RC showed total retention loss, 5? GH were partially lost.

--FDI ratings were not sufficiently different for any domain except surface luster, where RC showed higher score.

--Costs were initially lower for GH than RC, while re-treatment costs were similar, resulting in significantly lower costs for GH than RC.

While survival was not significantly different, GH was significantly less costly both initially and long-term than RC for restoring non-carious cervical lesions.

Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103689
Like
Comment
Share