Clinical Evaluation of a Self-Adhering Flowable Resin Composite in Minimally Invasive Class I Cavities: 5-year Results of a Double Blind Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.
Adhesiveness
Composite Resins
Dental Marginal Adaptation
Dental Restoration, Permanent
Journal
Acta stomatologica Croatica
ISSN: 0001-7019
Titre abrégé: Acta Stomatol Croat
Pays: Croatia
ID NLM: 0253456
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
entrez:
12
6
2020
pubmed:
12
6
2020
medline:
12
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a self-adhering flowable resin composite compared to a conventional flowable resin composite used with an etch&rinse adhesive system in minimally invasive Class I cavities. Twenty-five patients received at least one pair of Class I restorations (n=65). After class I cavities had been prepared, they were randomly restored either with a self-adhering flowable resin composite (VertiseFlow/Kerr-VR) [Group-1 (n=33)], or with a flowable resin composite (Luxaflow/DMG-LX) in combination with an etch&rinse adhesive (Teco/DMG) [Group-2 (n=32)] according to the manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 5 years according to the FDI criteria by two evaluators. A statistical analysis was carried out using the Pearson Chi-Square test and the Cochran Q-test followed by the Mc Nemar's test (p=0.05). After 5 years a total of 47 restorations were evaluated with a recall rate of 68%. At 4-year, 3 (11.5%) VR and 2 LX (7.6%) restorations exhibited a cumulative retention loss. Seventeen (73.9%) VR and 14 LX (58.3%) restorations exhibited clinically acceptable (2) scores for marginal adaptation. At 5-year evaluations VR and LX showed similar results regarding all evaluated criteria ( The use of both materials for the restoration of Class-I cavities demonstrated clinically acceptable performance at the end of 5-year. The self-adhering flowable composite exhibited a clinical performance similar to the conventional flowable applied with an etch&rinse adhesive.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32523153
doi: 10.15644/asc54/1/2
pii: ASC_54(1)_10-21
pmc: PMC7233123
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
10-21Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Dent Mater. 2013 Jul;29(7):752-62
pubmed: 23669197
Dent Mater. 1999 Mar;15(2):128-37
pubmed: 10551104
J Dent. 2014 Jul;42(7):793-9
pubmed: 24769385
Int J Dent. 2017;2017:5041529
pubmed: 28348594
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Feb;85(2):177-83
pubmed: 11208208
Oper Dent. 2012 Jan-Feb;37(1):3-11
pubmed: 21942235
Aust Dent J. 2016 Sep;61(3):366-73
pubmed: 26573239
Oper Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr;38(2):134-41
pubmed: 22917442
Oper Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):113-27
pubmed: 23802645
J Dent Hyg. 2008 Fall;82(5):45
pubmed: 19055885
Oper Dent. 2010 May-Jun;35(3):265-72
pubmed: 20533625
Dent Mater. 2011 Mar;27(3):259-66
pubmed: 21111476
J Dent. 2015 Sep;43(9):1083-1092
pubmed: 26159382
Coll Antropol. 2007 Dec;31(4):1019-24
pubmed: 18217452
Quintessence Int. 1991 Jan;22(1):47-9
pubmed: 1784719
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005 Jan;15(1):44-50
pubmed: 15663444
Pediatr Dent. 1998 Mar-Apr;20(2):85-92
pubmed: 9566011
J Adhes Dent. 2006 Apr;8(2):75-83
pubmed: 16708718
J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Apr;138(4):507-14; quiz 535-7
pubmed: 17403742
Oper Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;40(6):594-602
pubmed: 26237643
Eur J Oral Sci. 2007 Dec;115(6):517-21
pubmed: 18028062
Dent Mater. 2005 Sep;21(9):864-81
pubmed: 16009415
Int Dent J. 1980 Jun;30(2):127-39
pubmed: 6997215
J Dent. 2010 Mar;38(3):191-200
pubmed: 19840829
J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010 Jul;1(2):100-7
pubmed: 21350618
Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1105-9
pubmed: 18947267
Pediatr Dent. 2015 Sep-Oct;37(5):468-73
pubmed: 26531092
J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Nov;31(11):1090-101
pubmed: 15525388
J Dent Res. 2014 Feb;93(2):195-200
pubmed: 24272790