Clinical evaluation of subgingival open sandwich restorations: 3-year results of a randomized double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a 3-year follow-up of previously treated patients to assess and compare the periodontal responses and clinical performance of proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five adults participated in the study, with a combined total of 120 compound Class II cavities. These cavities had gingival margins located below the CEJ. Four different restorative materials were used to elevate the dentin/cementum gingival margins of the cavities: resin-modified glass ionomer, glass hybrid, flowable bulk-fill composite, or ion-releasing material, which were then completed with the same overlaying composite. Different periodontal and clinical evaluations, based on the criteria set by the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, were performed at different time intervals, including baseline, 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. RESULTS: The type of base material did not affect the periodontal evaluations. There were no statistically significant differences between different time intervals or base material groups in any of the evaluated FDI parameters. However, the ion-releasing material scored significantly worse in the radiographic evaluation than any of the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: All tested materials are suitable for proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations, as long as the restoration/tooth margin is at least 2-mm away from the bone crest. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians can confidently choose any of the tested materials for proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations, as they have shown good outcomes from both periodontal and clinical perspectives.

Periodontal Evaluation of Subgingival Open Sandwich Restorations: 2-Year Results of a Randomized Double-Blind Trial.

This study aimed to evaluate the periodontal responses of subgingival proximal margins elevated using different restorative materials. A total of 120 proximal cavities with dentin/cementum gingival margins were elevated using one of four materials (resin-modified glass ionomer, glass hybrid, flowable bulk-fill resin composite, or bioactive ionic resin) and completed with the same overlaying resin composite. At 2 weeks (baseline), 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postrestoration, periodontal parameters and the radiographic distance between the restoration margin and bone crest were evaluated. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed. The values of all periodontal parameters increased with time, although only the increases in Plaque Index and probing depth within each material group were statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the periodontal parameters between the different materials within the same evaluation period, nor between different time points or material groups in the radiographic distances. Both glass ionomer-based and resin-based materials were periodontally safe as subgingival open sandwich restorations.