 |
| Title |
No Clinical or Statistical Difference Between Porcelain and Composite Restorations for Fractured Maxillary Incisor |
| Clinical Question |
In a patient with a maxillary anterior tooth fracture, would a composite restoration, compared to a porcelain veneer, provide a stronger restoration? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
For a patient with a maxillary anterior tooth trauma fracture of 4 mm or less, there is no statistically significant difference in the fracture resistance between a composite restoration and porcelain veneer. The composite restoration and porcelain veneer are clinically acceptable treatments, but treatment decision would depend on esthetics and cost. |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 21752192 | Batalocco/2012 | 60/ human-extracted maxillary central and lateral incisors | Controlled in-vitro trial | | Key results | The composite veneers of the 2 mm fracture group demonstrated a mean failure load of 1386.59 N ± 712.16 while the 4 mm fracture group demonstrated a mean failure load of 1322.61 N ± 716.16. The porcelain veneers of the 2 mm fracture group demonstrated a mean failure load of 1039.29 N ± 592.96 while the 4 mm fracture group demonstrated a mean failure load of 1459.21 N ± 910.25. | |
| Evidence Search |
("dental porcelain"[MeSH Terms] OR ("dental"[All Fields] AND "porcelain"[All Fields]) OR "dental porcelain"[All Fields] OR "porcelain"[All Fields]) AND composite[All Fields] AND veneer[All Fields] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Validity: This article is a controlled and presented a comprehensive and detailed description of their respective materials and methods. The trials tested the results for validity by comparing the findings to known values. Although the 2 experimental groups, composite and porcelain, technically were prepared differently, the 2 groups were prepared using clinically established and accepted methods. The veneer was prepared without a palatal extension while the composite was prepared with a palatal extension with a bevel. |
| Applicability |
Anterior maxillary trauma fracture restored with either a composite restoration or porcelain veneer. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(Prosthodontics) (Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
trauma fracture, anterior maxillary incisor, porcelain veneer, composite restoration, failure load, fracture resistance
|
| ID# |
2441 |
| Date of submission: |
03/27/2013 |
| E-mail |
kwee@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Eileen Kwee |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
William Rose, DDS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
rosew@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
| None available | |
|
|
