ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the failure rates for three different adhesively retained core build-up composites up to the incorporation of a permanent fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), and to identify potential failure risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 300 participants in need of a core build-up to restore a vital abutment tooth before prosthetic treatment was conducted. Participants were assigned by stratified block randomization to one of three study groups: Rebilda DC (RDC), Clearfil DC Core (CDC), or Multicore Flow (MF). Test teeth were prepared by use of the respective manufacturer's adhesive system. The total-etch technique was used for RDC and MF, and the self-etch technique for CDC. Participants were treated by dentists (n = 150) or dental students (n = 150). Failure rates of core build-ups before incorporation of FDPs were investigated using univariate and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The overall failure rate was 8% (n = 23). Rate differences between the three investigated groups did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). The mean time between placement of core build-ups and placement of fixed dental prostheses was 12.2 (SD: 14.2) weeks. Conversely, larger cavities (> 3 surfaces) and treatment by dental students were independently associated with an increased failure risk (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The main risk factors for early failure seem to be the size of the core build-up and clinical experience of the operator, whereas failure rates of core build-up materials combined with a self-etch approach seem to be similar to the rates of materials combined with the total-etch technique. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This research article should give clinicians an impression of the short-term performance of different adhesively retained core build-ups using different adhesive techniques/materials. Moreover, predominant influencing factors for the success or failure should be pictured.
