Tugba Toz-Akalin, Funda Öztürk-Bozkurt, Mahmut Kusdemir, Alev Özsoy, Emir Yüzbaşıoğlu, Mutlu Özcan
{"title":"Three-year clinical performance of direct restorations using low-shrinkage Giomer vs. nano-hybrid resin composite.","authors":"Tugba Toz-Akalin, Funda Öztürk-Bozkurt, Mahmut Kusdemir, Alev Özsoy, Emir Yüzbaşıoğlu, Mutlu Özcan","doi":"10.3389/fdmed.2024.1459473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this investigation was to compare the clinical performance of a nano-hybrid resin composite and a low-shrinkage Giomer resin composite.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In total, 35 pairs of restorations were performed using either low-shrinkage Giomer (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc.) or nano-hybrid (Clearfil Majesty Posterior) resin composite in 35 patients by two operators using the relevant adhesives, i.e., FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc.) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), with the self-etching technique according to each manufacturer's instructions. Two clinicians assessed the restorations 2 weeks (baseline); 6 months; and 1, 2, and 3 years after the restorative procedures using FDI (World Dental Federation) criteria (Scores 1-5). Data were analyzed using the marginal homogeneity and McNemar tests. The survival rate was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the survival of the two groups was compared with the log-rank test (<i>p</i> = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean observation period was 37.7 ± 6.8 months. All restorations completed their 3-year follow-up. The criteria were mainly rated with high (1 or 2) scores for quality in both groups. Only one restoration in the low-shrinkage Giomer resin composite group was accepted as a failure at the 2-year recall due to retention loss.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At the 3-year follow-up, the performance of the restorations using the Giomer and the nano-hybrid resin composite were similar and clinically acceptable.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The low-shrinkage Giomer resin composite exhibited a similar clinical performance to the nano-hybrid resin composite after 3 years in service with both materials displaying minor surface deteriorations at the 3-year recall.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT02823769.</p>","PeriodicalId":73077,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in dental medicine","volume":"5 ","pages":"1459473"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11797754/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in dental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2024.1459473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this investigation was to compare the clinical performance of a nano-hybrid resin composite and a low-shrinkage Giomer resin composite.
Material and methods: In total, 35 pairs of restorations were performed using either low-shrinkage Giomer (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc.) or nano-hybrid (Clearfil Majesty Posterior) resin composite in 35 patients by two operators using the relevant adhesives, i.e., FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc.) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), with the self-etching technique according to each manufacturer's instructions. Two clinicians assessed the restorations 2 weeks (baseline); 6 months; and 1, 2, and 3 years after the restorative procedures using FDI (World Dental Federation) criteria (Scores 1-5). Data were analyzed using the marginal homogeneity and McNemar tests. The survival rate was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the survival of the two groups was compared with the log-rank test (p = 0.05).
Results: The mean observation period was 37.7 ± 6.8 months. All restorations completed their 3-year follow-up. The criteria were mainly rated with high (1 or 2) scores for quality in both groups. Only one restoration in the low-shrinkage Giomer resin composite group was accepted as a failure at the 2-year recall due to retention loss.
Conclusion: At the 3-year follow-up, the performance of the restorations using the Giomer and the nano-hybrid resin composite were similar and clinically acceptable.
Clinical relevance: The low-shrinkage Giomer resin composite exhibited a similar clinical performance to the nano-hybrid resin composite after 3 years in service with both materials displaying minor surface deteriorations at the 3-year recall.