Five-year clinical follow-up of bulk-fill restorative materials in class II restorations

被引：0

作者：

Gürses, Merve ^{[1
]}

Inan, Bahar ^{[2
]}

Cobanoglu, Nevin ^{[1
]}

Türkmen, Atiye Tugba Kuzgun ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selçuk University, Alaeddin Keykubat Campus, İsmet Paşa Street, No:309, Selcuklu, Konya

[2] Karacigan, Enntepe Mall Office, No:1/7 A Blok Floor:7, Karatay, Konya

来源：

Dental Materials Journal | 2024年 / 43卷 / 05期

关键词：

Class II restoration; Clinical observation; High-viscosity glass ionomer; Modified USPHS;

D O I：

10.4012/dmj.2024-132

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

This study evaluates the 5-year clinical performance of Class II restorations performed with different bulk-fill restorative materials. In the study, Class II restorations performed with Tetric Bulk-Fill (TBF), Filtek Bulk-Fill (FBF), and Equia Forte Fil (EF) were evaluated. One hundred-nineteen restorations were included in the study. Restorations were assessed during the 6th month, 1st, 2nd, and 5th year. Cochran Q, Pearson chi-square, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests were used for statistical analysis. In the 5th year, significant differences were observed in terms of retention, color match, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, and anatomical form in all materials. There was a significant difference between EF and bulk-fill composites only in terms of retention and anatomical form. EF was significantly less successful than bulk-fill composites with regard to retention and anatomical form, but bulk-fill composites have shown similar clinical performance. EF cannot be an alternative to bulk-fill composites for Class II restorations. © 2024, Japanese Society for Dental Materials and Devices. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：746 / 754

页数：8

共 44 条

[1] Laegreid T, Gjerdet NR, Johansson A, Johansson AK., Clinical decision making on extensive molar restorations, Oper Dent, 39, pp. E231-E240, (2014)
[2] Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, Et al., Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry-European Section, J Dent, 42, pp. 377-383, (2014)
[3] Ferracane JL., Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can’t predict?, Dent Mater, 29, pp. 51-58, (2013)
[4] Kaisarly D, Gezawi ME., Polymerization shrinkage assessment of dental resin composites: A literature review, Odontology, 104, pp. 257-270, (2016)
[5] Braga RR, Ferracane JL., Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management, Crit Rev Oral Biol Med, 15, pp. 176-184, (2004)
[6] Kuijs RH, Fennis WMM, Kreulen CM, Barink M, Verdonschot N., Does layering minimize shrinkage stresses in composite restorations?, J Dent Res, 82, pp. 967-971, (2003)
[7] Coelho Santos MJM, Santos GC, Nagem Filho H, Mondelli RFL, El-Mowafy O., Effect of light curing method on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of resin composites, Oper Dent, 29, pp. 157-161, (2004)
[8] Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL., Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: A systematic review, Dent Mater, 21, pp. 962-970, (2005)
[9] Ferracane JL., Resin composite —State of the art, Dent Mater, 27, pp. 29-38, (2011)
[10] Czasch P, Ilie N., In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites, Clin Oral Investig, 17, pp. 227-235, (2013)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →