Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May;17(Suppl 1):S436-S438.
doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1443_24. Epub 2025 Feb 25.

Comparative Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes with Different Aesthetic Restorative Materials in Anterior Teeth

Ipsita Singh  1 , Noora O E S Al Suwaidi  2 , Manish Pisarla  3 , Bharathi Chundi  4 , Manawar A Mansoor  5 , Hina N Abdul  5 , Trupti G Makwana  6
Affiliations

Comparative Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes with Different Aesthetic Restorative Materials in Anterior Teeth

Ipsita Singh et al. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 May.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Aesthetic restorations; anterior teeth; ceramic restorations; composite resin; durability; glass ionomer cement; patient satisfaction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite:A 7-year evaluation. Dent Mater. 2011;27:150–6. - PubMed
    1. Burke FJ. Dental materials--what goes where?The current status of glass ionomer as a material for loadbearing restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Update. 2013;40:840–4. - PubMed
    1. Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry:Historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J. 2011;56((Suppl 1)):84–96. - PubMed
    1. Crisp RJ, Lewis BG, Wilson AD. Properties of polycarboxylate cements. Br Dent J. 2015;129:330–4.
    1. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations:A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98:389–404. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources