Evaluation of the performance of class IV restoration using organically modified ceramic ( ORMOCER) in comparison to a methacrylate based composite resin over a period of 12 months follow up: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Restorative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry, Modern Sciences and Arts University, Egypt

2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt

10.21608/adjc.2025.331910.1680

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of ORMOCER in anterior Class IV restorations compared to Methacrylate Based Composite Resin over a one-year follow-up period.
Methodology: 26 participants having Class IV cavities were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned equally into two groups, group 1: ORMOCER (Admira Fusion, Voco GmbH, Germany), group2: Methacrylate Based (Ceram.X Spectra ST, Dentsply Sirona, UK). The restorations were assessed immediately (T0), one week (T1), 3 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) using Modified USPHS criteria and Vita Easyshade V spectrophotometer. Criteria assessed were shade match, retention, fracture of restoration, marginal discoloration, wear/anatomic form, recurrent caries, marginal adaptation and surface texture.
Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding shade match using (CIELAB values) within all follow up periods. Intragroup comparison within both groups have shown no statistically significant differences between different follow-up periods. Regarding clinical evaluation of shade match using modified USPHS criteria, no statistically significant differences were found between different follow up periods in intergroup comparison. Intragroup comparison within both groups has shown statistically significant differences between different follow-up periods. Regarding all other clinical criteria, intergroup and intragroup comparisons have shown no statistically significant difference within different follow-up periods.
Conclusions: Ormocer showed comparable performance to Methacrylate in aesthetics, functionality, and biological properties. It had slightly better clinical outcomes in surface texture and fracture resistance. Although both materials experienced changes in shade over time, these changes stayed within clinically acceptable limits. There was a significant discrepancy between subjective and objective evaluations of shade matching.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics