USE OF MODERN RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN PATIENTS WITH GERD: CLINICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON A 36-MONTH FOLLOW-UP
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35220/2523-420X/2026.1.14Keywords:
gastroesophageal reflux disease, restorative materials, lithium disilicate, zirconium dioxide, 10-MDP, adhesive systems, clinical effectivenessAbstract
Aim of the study. To determine the optimal strategy for prosthodontic treatment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by assessing the clinical effectiveness of modern restorative materials and adhesive systems over a 36-month observation period. Materials and methods. Prosthodontic treatment was performed in 98 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD. Depending on the type of restorations, the patients were divided into three subgroups: subgroup A – indirect restorations made of lithium disilicate; subgroup B – indirect restorations made of zirconium dioxide; subgroup C – direct nanohybrid composite restorations. In total, 351 restorations were fabricated and analyzed. Clinical evaluation was carried out at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months according to the criteria of anatomical form preservation, marginal adaptation, gingival response, color match, and the presence of complications. Adhesive protocols included the use of 10-MDP–based adhesives, multi-step adhesive systems, and self-adhesive cements. Results. The highest clinical stability at 36 months of follow-up was demonstrated by zirconium dioxide restorations combined with 10-MDP–based adhesives: preservation of anatomical form was observed in 97% of cases, adequate gingival response in 98.5%, and color match in 100%. Lithium disilicate restorations showed high aesthetic performance; however, in the long-term follow-up period, the need for repeated polishing was noted. Direct composite restorations demonstrated lower stability, with the development of marginal staining and marginal leakage. Self-adhesive cements without additional adhesive pretreatment showed the lowest clinical effectiveness. Conclusions. Zirconium dioxide in combination with 10-MDP–based adhesives is the most stable material for indirect restorations in patients with GERD. Lithium disilicate may be used provided that regular clinical follow-up is ensured. The use of self-adhesive cements without adhesive pretreatment and direct composite restorations is not recommended due to a high rate of complications.
References
Attik N., Richert R., Garoushi S. Biomechanics, bioactive and biomimetic philosophy in restorative dentistry – Quo vadis? Journal of Dentistry.
Vol. 148. Art. 105036. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105036.
Дорошенко О. М., Біда В. І., Дорошенко М. М., Волосовець Т. М., Дорошенко М. В. та ін. Втрата твердих тканин зубів і розлади сну: огляд сучасних досліджень. Сучасна медицина, фармація та психологічне здоров’я. 2024. № 3(17). С. 12–17. URL: https://doi.org/10.33295/1992-576x-2025-3-97.
Стеценко Т., Дорошенко М. Результати стоматологічного обстеження пацієнтів із гастроезофагеальною рефлюксною хворобою. Сучасна стоматологія.2022. № 5–6. С. 22–25.
Біда В. І., Дорошенко М. М. Порівняльна характеристика ефективності заміщення дефектів твердих тканин зубів у пацієнтів із гастроезофагеальною
рефлюксною хворобою. Вісник стоматології. 2024. № 1(126), Т. 51. С. 162–167.
Біда В. І., Дорошенко М. М. Пошук методів діагностики і лікування стоматологічних захворювань у пацієнтів із гастроезофагеальною рефлюксною хворобою. Сучасна стоматологія. 2023. № 5. С. 35–39.
Біда В. І., Дорошенко М. М. Вивчення взаємозв’язку між гастроезофагеальною рефлюксною хворобою, бруксизмом та ерозивними ураженнями
твердих тканин зубів у практиці лікарів-стоматологів. Сучасна стоматологія. 2024. № 5. С. 30–38.
Gil-Pozo A., Astudillo-Rubio D., Ferrando Cascales Á., Inchingolo F., Hirata R., Sauro S., Delgado-Gaete A. Effect of gastric acids on the mechanical properties
of conventional and CAD/CAM resin composites – an in vitro study. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2024. Vol. 155. Art. 106565. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106565.
Theocharidou A., Kontonasaki E., Koukousaki I., Koumpouli A., Betsani I., Koidis P. Effect of in vitro aging and acidic storage on color, translucency, and contrast ratio of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022. Vol. 127, № 3. P. 479–488.
Kulkarni A., Rothrock J., Thompson J. Impact of gastric acid induced surface changes on mechanical behavior and optical characteristics of dental ceramics.
Journal of Prosthodontics. 2020. Vol. 29, № 3. P. 207–218. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12716.
Gil-Pozo A., Astudillo-Rubio D., Ferrando Cascales Á., Inchingolo F., Hirata R., Sauro S., Delgado-Gaete A. Effect of gastric acids on the mechanical properties
of conventional and CAD/CAM resin composites – an in vitro study. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2024. Vol. 155. Art. 106565. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106565.
Elraggal A., Afifi R., Abdel Raheem I. Effect of erosive media on microhardness and fracture toughness of CAD-CAM dental materials. BMC Oral Health.
Vol. 22. Art. 1. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02230-1.
Mesko M., Sarkis-Onofre R., Cenci M., Opdam N., Loomans B., Pereira-Cenci T. Rehabilitation of severely worn teeth: a systematic review. Journal of Dentistry. 2016. Vol. 48. P. 1–10. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.03.003.
Omara A. A., Othman H. I., Aldamaty M. F. та ін. Effect of acidic environment on color and translucency of different indirect restorative materials. BMC Oral Health. 2024. Vol. 24. Art. 472. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04218-5.14
Cruz M., Oliveira J., Dovigo L., Fonseca R. Longterm effect of gastric juice alternating with brushing on the surface roughness, topography, and staining susceptibility of CAD-CAM monolithic materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022. Vol. 127. Art. 10. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.016.
Alnasser M., Finkelman M., Papathanasiou A., Suzuki M., Ghaffari R., Ali A. Effect of acidic pH on surface roughness of esthetic dental materials. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry. 2019. Vol. 122, № 6. P. 567.e1–567. e8. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.022.
Belmar da Costa M., Delgado A. H., Amorim Afonso T., Proença L., Ramos A. S., Mano Azul A. Investigating a commercial functional adhesive with 12-MDPB and reactive filler to strengthen the adhesive interface in eroded dentin. Polymers. 2021. Vol. 13, № 20. Art. 3562. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13203562.
de Rossi G. R. C., Ozcan M., Volpato C. A. M. How to improve bond stability to eroded dentin: a comprehensive review. Journal of Adhesion Science and
Technology. 2021. Vol. 35, № 10. P. 1015–1034.
Van Meerbeek B., Yoshihara K., Van Landuyt K., Yoshida Y., Peumans M. From Buonocore’s pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives: a
status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2020. Vol. 22, № 1. P. 7–34.
Siqueira F. S., Cardenas A. M., Ocampo J. B., Hass V., Bandeca M. C., Gomes J. C., Loguercio A. D. Bonding performance of universal adhesives to eroded
dentin. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2018. Vol. 20, № 2. P. 121–132.
Tsujimoto A., Barkmeier W. W., Takamizawa T., Watanabe H., Johnson W. W., Latta M. A., Miyazaki M. Comparison between universal adhesives and two-step selfetch adhesives in terms of dentin bond fatigue durability in self-etch mode. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 2017. Vol. 125, № 3. P. 215–222.
Forgerini T. V., Ribeiro J. F., Rocha R. O., Soares F. Z., Lenzi T. L. Role of etching mode on bonding longevity of a universal adhesive to eroded dentin. Journal
of Adhesive Dentistry. 2017. Vol. 19, № 1. P. 69–75. URL: https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a37723.
