One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative

被引:0
作者
Andreas Rathke
Frank Pfefferkorn
Michael K. McGuire
Rick H. Heard
Rainer Seemann
机构
[1] Dentsply Sirona,Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, zmk Bern
[2] University of Ulm,undefined
[3] Faculty of Dentistry,undefined
[4] The McGuire Institute,undefined
[5] University of Bern,undefined
来源
Scientific Reports | / 12卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This prospective study assessed the dual-curing self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative Surefil one. The restorations were placed and reviewed by dental practitioners who are members of a practice-based research network in the United States. Seven practitioners filled 60 cavities (20 class I, 19 class II and 21 class V) in 41 patients with Surefil one without adhesive, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Patients were also contacted to report postoperative hypersensitivity one to four weeks after placement. The only patient that showed moderate hypersensitivity after 1 year had previously reported symptoms that were unlikely associated to the class I molar restoration. One class II restoration in a fractured maxillary molar was partially lost. The remaining restorations were found to be in clinically acceptable condition resulting in an annual failure rate of 2%. Color match showed the lowest number of acceptable scores (88%) revealing significant changes over time (P = 0.0002). No significant differences were found for the other criteria (P > 0.05). The novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed clinically acceptable results in stress-bearing class I and II as well as non-retentive class V cavities at 1-year recall.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 175 条
  • [1] Heintze SD(2012)Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations—A meta-analysis J. Adhes. Dent. 14 407-431
  • [2] Rousson V(2014)Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis J. Dent. Res. 93 943-949
  • [3] Opdam NJM(2015)A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in class II restorations Dent. Mater. 31 1232-1244
  • [4] Van de Sande FH(2015)Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996–2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies Dent. Mater. 31 958-985
  • [5] Bronkhorst EM(2011)Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR technology Dent. Mater. 27 348-355
  • [6] Cenci MS(2017)Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: A randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation Eur. J. Oral. Sci. 125 303-309
  • [7] Bottenberg P(2018)Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT Dent. Mater. 34 e138-e147
  • [8] Pallesen U(2021)Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations Clin. Oral. Invest. 33 209-217
  • [9] Gaengler P(2017)Limited interaction of a self-adhesive flowable composite with dentin/enamel characterized by TEM Dent. Mater. 44 E223-E233
  • [10] Lindberg A(2019)Hydrolytic and biological degradation of bulk-fill and self-adhering resin composites Oper. Dent. 45 E308-E316