Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 15, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Comparative Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes with Different Aesthetic Restorative Materials in Anterior Teeth
Ipsita Singh1, Noora O E S Al Suwaidi2, Manish Pisarla3
1Intern, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Objective:
The study aims to compare patient-reported outcomes for aesthetic restorations in anterior teeth using composite resins, glass ionomer cements (GICs), and ceramic-based restorations. Patient satisfaction regarding aesthetics, functionality, durability, and overall experience was evaluated.
Materials And Methods:
This prospective cohort study included 180 patients (aged 18-65 years) who required anterior aesthetic restorations. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either composite resin, GIC, or ceramic restorations. Satisfaction with aesthetics, comfort, and durability was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 1-, 6-, and 12-month post-treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, with a P value < 0.05 considered significant.
Results:
Ceramic restorations scored the highest for aesthetics (VAS 9.1), functionality (VAS 9.0), and durability (5% reported issues). Composite resins had lower durability (15% reported issues) but scored well in aesthetics (VAS 8.2). GICs had the lowest overall satisfaction, with 25% reporting durability issues. Overall satisfaction was highest for ceramics (94%), followed by composites (85%) and GICs (68%).
Conclusion:
Ceramic restorations offer superior aesthetic and functional outcomes. Composite resins provide a cost-effective option with acceptable aesthetics, while GICs were rated lower due to their limited durability and aesthetics.
