Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and universal nanocomposites in class II cavities: Five-year results of a randomized clinical split-mouth trial

被引:10
|
作者
Schoilew, Kyrill [1 ,2 ]
Fazeli, Shila [1 ]
Felten, Anna [1 ]
Sekundo, Caroline [1 ]
Wolff, Diana [1 ]
Frese, Cornelia [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Heidelberg, Dent Sch, Dept Conservat Dent, Heidelberg, Germany
[2] Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
Bulk-fill; Composite resin; Dental material; Posterior; Randomized controlled trial; POSTERIOR COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS; RESIN COMPOSITES; LONGEVITY; CURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104362
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim: Evaluating the clinical survival and quality parameters of class-II restorations using 3MTM FiltekTM Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative compared to 3MTM FiltekTM Supreme XTE Universal Restorative over a period of five years.Materials and methods: A longitudinal, randomized, prospective split-mouth study with 60 patients (29 female, 31 male; mean age 44 y; range 20-77 y) and a total of 120 load-bearing class II restorations (TEST: n=60 Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative; CONTROL: n=60 Filtek Supreme XTE Universal Restorative) was conducted. Clinical evaluation was performed by blinded evaluators according to FDI criteria. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis and an intergroup comparison (Mann-Whitney-U-Test) was carried out. A basic significance level of 0.05 was corrected by the Bonferroni method to account for multiple testing (significance after correction: p<0.00067).Results: The mean overall survival of restorations was 92% after 56.98 +/- 1.51 months in the TEST group (95 CI= 54.02;59.94) and 92% after 57.25 +/- 1.46 months (95 CI= 54.39; 60.12) in the CONTROL group (log-rank p=0.995). In total, four failures occurred in both TEST and CONTROL group during the observation period (mean annual failure rate: 1.6%). The most common reasons for failure were chipping-fractures, debonding, cracked-tooth-syndrome and recurrent decay. With regard to the FDI criteria, no significant differences between TEST and CONTROL material occurred for any of the evaluated variables. In the TEST group two restorations had to be repaired and two had to be replaced, in the CONTROL group four restorations had to be replaced.Conclusion: Both materials showed acceptable clinical performance and survival during the 5-year observation period.Clinical Significance: The use of a nanofilled bulk-fill composite proved to be an aesthetically, functionally and biologically satisfactory alternative in posterior dentition.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] A randomized clinical split-mouth trial of a bulk-fill and a nanohybrid composite restorative in class II cavities: Three-year results
    Sekundo, Caroline
    Fazeli, Shila
    Felten, Anna
    Schoilew, Kyrill
    Wolff, Diana
    Frese, Cornelia
    DENTAL MATERIALS, 2022, 38 (05) : 759 - 768
  • [2] One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities-a randomized clinical split-mouth study
    Cieplik, Fabian
    Scholz, Konstantin J.
    Anthony, Julian C.
    Tabenski, Isabelle
    Ettenberger, Sarah
    Hiller, Karl-Anton
    Buchalla, Wolfgang
    Federlin, Marianne
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2022, 26 (01) : 449 - 461
  • [3] One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
    Fabian Cieplik
    Konstantin J. Scholz
    Julian C. Anthony
    Isabelle Tabenski
    Sarah Ettenberger
    Karl-Anton Hiller
    Wolfgang Buchalla
    Marianne Federlin
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2022, 26 : 449 - 461
  • [4] 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
    Cieplik, Fabian
    Hiller, Karl-Anton
    Buchalla, Wolfgang
    Federlin, Marianne
    Scholz, Konstantin J.
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2022, 125
  • [5] Randomized clinical split-mouth study on a self-adhesive vs. a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities: Results after five years
    Schenke, Isabelle M.
    Pfister, Julia L.
    Hiller, Karl-Anton
    Buchalla, Wolfgang
    Cieplik, Fabian
    Ettenberger, Sarah
    Scholz, Konstantin J.
    Federlin, Marianne
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2025, 156
  • [6] Clinical evaluation of "Snowplow" technique versus Bulk-fill technique in restoration of class II cavities: A randomized clinical trial
    Gomaa, Mariam M.
    Mosallam, Rania S.
    Abou-Auf, Eman A.
    Hassanien, Olfat Elsayed
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ORAL HEALTH, 2024, 16 (02): : 158 - 165
  • [7] Flowable bulk-fill versus layering restorative material on Class II restorations: A randomized clinical trial
    Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes
    Mailart, Mariane Cintra
    Moecke, Sabrina Elise
    Matuda, Amanda Guedes Nogueira
    Veloso, Sheyla Mamede
    da Silva Avila, Daniele Mara
    Di Nicolo, Rebeca
    Borges, Alessandra Buhler
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 148
  • [8] Clinical performance of different bulk-fill composite resin systems in class II cavities: A 2-year randomized clinical trial
    Goda, Badria
    Hamdi, Kareem
    Eltoukhy, Radwa I.
    Ali, Ashraf I.
    Mahmoud, Salah Hasab
    JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2024, 36 (08) : 1122 - 1137
  • [9] Clinical comparison of different glass ionomer-based restoratives and a bulk-fill resin composite in Class I cavities: A 48-month randomized split-mouth controlled trial
    Bayazit, Elif Ozturk
    Baseren, Meserret
    Meral, Ece
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 131
  • [10] Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study
    Dindaroglu, Funda Cagirir
    Yilmaz, Ece
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2024, 28 (04)