Randomized clinical split-mouth study on a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative vs. a conventional bulk-fill composite for restoration of class II cavities – results after three years - University of Regensburg Publication Server

URN to cite this document:: urn:nbn:de:bvb:355-epub-530450
DOI to cite this document:: 10.5283/epub.53045

Cieplik, Fabian

; Hiller, Karl-Anton ; Buchalla, Wolfgang ; Federlin, Marianne ; Scholz, Konstantin J.

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
PDF - Published Version
(9MB)

Date of publication of this fulltext: 24 Oct 2022 05:36

Alternative links to fulltext:DOI Publisher

Details

Preview

Indexed in

Export bibliographical data

Abstract

Abstract

Objectives: This randomized prospective split-mouth study evaluated the clinical performance of a novel, toothcolored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative (SABF, 3M) for restoration of class II cavities as compared to a conventional bulk-fill composite (Filtek One, 3M; FOBF) over 36 months. The null-hypothesis was that both materials perform equally regarding clinical success and performance according to the FDI clinical criteria and scoring system. Methods: 30 patients received one SABF and one FOBF restoration each. For FOBF, Scotchbond Universal (3M) was used as adhesive (self-etch mode), whereas SABF was applied without adhesive. Two blinded examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline, 24 and 36 months using FDI criteria. Data were analyzed nonparametrically (.2-tests; a=0.05). Results: 29 patients were available for the 24- and 36-month examinations. Clinical success rate was 96.6% for both materials at 36-mo (one restoration failure due to secondary caries each). All other restorations revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores at all recalls. FOBF performed significantly better than SABF at all time points regarding surface lustre (p<0.001) and color match and translucency (p<0.001) and regarding marginal staining at 36-months (p=0.008). Marginal staining and marginal adaptation deteriorated significantly over time for both materials (both p<0.001). Conclusions: The null-hypothesis could only partially be rejected. Both materials performed similarly regarding clinical success and performance within 36 months of clinical service, but SABF exhibited significantly inferior, but clinically fully acceptable esthetic properties as compared to FOBF. Both restorative materials showed clinically fully acceptable results over 36 months of clinical service and thus may be recommended for clinical use. Clinical significance: The novel tooth-colored self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative exhibited clinically fully acceptable results over 36 months of clinical service, similarly to a conventional bulk-fill restorative used with a universal adhesive, but with slight shortcomings in esthetic properties. Therefore, both restorative materials may be recommended for clinical use.

Owner only: item control page

Download Statistics

Altmetric

Alternative Statistics (altmetrics)

More literature (via CORE)

Randomized clinical split-mouth study on a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative vs. a conventional bulk-fill composite for restoration of class II cavities – results after three years

Details

Preview

Indexed in

Export bibliographical data

Abstract

Abstract

Download Statistics

Downloads

Alternative Statistics (altmetrics)

More literature (via CORE)

University Library