Abstract:

Purpose: Diasthesis in the anterior area can cause both aesthetic and psychosocial problems. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of orthodontic reinforcement aperees formed by vacuum on the clinical success of direct composite restorations used in the closure of diasthes in the upper front area. Method and method: This retrospective study included 102 restorations in 40 patients with diasthesia in the anterior area without orthodontic treatment or after orthodontic treatment. The restorations were made by the same doctor using Clearfil MajestyTM ES-2 (Kuraray, Okoyama, Japan). Patients are divided into two groups: those who use the reinforcement array formed by the vacuum after diasthesis (Group 1: 20 patients 45 restoration) and those who do not use (Group 2: 20 patients 47 restoration). Restorations were evaluated using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria modified 1 year later. The data is evaluated using the Ki-Kare test. Results: There is no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of retension, color consistency and surface smoothness (p>0,05). In Group 1, there is more side coloring that cannot be corrected by polysage, while in Group 2, the anatomical form loss is greater than in Group 1. There is a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of boundary coloring and anatomical form (p<0,05). The result: Strengthing apereals, formed with the vacuum to be used after orthodontic treatment, retain the anatomical form of the direct composite restorations used in the diasthetic closure, while causing boundary coloring at the restoration-dental border. Therefore, patients who use the reinforcement apparatus after orthodontic treatment should be aware of oral hygiene. Keywords: Diasthesia, Composite Restoration, Strengthening Apey ABSTRACT Aim: Diasthesia in the previous region can cause both aesthetic and psychosocial problems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of vacuum-formed orthodontic retainer on the clinical success of direct composite restorations used in the closure of diastemas. Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, 102 restorations in 40 patients with diasthesis in the previous region without orthodontic treatment or after orthodontic treatment were included. Restorations were performed by the same operator using Clearfil MajestyTM ES-2 (Kuraray, Okoyama, Japan). The patients were divided into two groups: Those using vacuum-formed orthodontic retainer after diastema closure (Group 1: 20 patients, 45 restorations) and those who did not use vacuum-formed orthodontic retainer after diastema closure (Group 2: 20 patients, 47 restorations). Restorations were evaluated using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of retention, color matching and surface roughness (p>0.05). In Group 1, there was more marginal discoloration which could not be corrected by polishing, whereas in Group 2, anatomic form loss was higher than in Group 1. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of marginal discoloration and anatomic form (p<0.05). Conclusion: Vacuum-formed orthodontic retainer appliances to be used after orthodontic treatment may maintain the anatomical form of direct composite restorations used in diastema closure and may cause marginal discoloration at the restoration-tooth interface. Therefore, patients after orthodontic treatment should be made conscious about oral hygiene. Keywords: Diastema, Composite restoration, Vacuum-formed retainer

Keywords: