Zusammenfassung
Objectives. To evaluate the clinical performance of two flowable composites for restoration of Class-V non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), one with novel (N'Durance (R) Dimer Flow, Septodont; ND) and one with modified conventional matrix composition (Filtek (TM) Supreme XTE Flow, 3M-ESPE; FS). The null hypothesis was that both flowable composite materials perform equally regarding clinical ...
Zusammenfassung
Objectives. To evaluate the clinical performance of two flowable composites for restoration of Class-V non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), one with novel (N'Durance (R) Dimer Flow, Septodont; ND) and one with modified conventional matrix composition (Filtek (TM) Supreme XTE Flow, 3M-ESPE; FS). The null hypothesis was that both flowable composite materials perform equally regarding clinical quality and survival. Methods. 50 patients received one ND and one FS restoration of NCCLs in premolars using Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray) as an adhesive without additional selective enamel etching. Restorations were evaluated at baseline (BL), after 30 and 60 months employing selected original FDI criteria and refined FDI criteria by separate evaluation of enamel and dentine margins. Non-parametric statistical analyses and chi(2) tests were applied (alpha = 0.05). Results. 38 patients with both restorations under risk were available for the 60-mo recall (recall rate: 76%). At 60-mo, 94.7% of ND and 84.2% of FS restorations were rated clinically acceptable. No significant differences for all selected FDI criteria were recorded between ND and FS at each examination time point except for the criteria surface lustre at 60-mo, where FS showed significantly better results. No significant differences over time could be detected for both materials. There was a trend for more deterioration along the enamel margins than along the dentine margins (criteria marginal staining and marginal adaptation). Significance. Within the limitations of the study, the null hypothesis that materials perform equally could not be rejected. Both flowable composites performed similarly regarding clinical performance. (C) 2017 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Altmetric