Clinical Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fill Composite Versus Conventional Nano-Hybrid Composite in Cervical Cavities-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Riham Kamal El-Shazly, Inas Mohsen Ali El-Zayat, Mohamed Mahmoud Abdel Mohsen, Mohamed Essam Mohamed Labib
{"title":"Clinical Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fill Composite Versus Conventional Nano-Hybrid Composite in Cervical Cavities-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.","authors":"Riham Kamal El-Shazly, Inas Mohsen Ali El-Zayat, Mohamed Mahmoud Abdel Mohsen, Mohamed Essam Mohamed Labib","doi":"10.1111/jerd.13472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This randomized controlled trial assessed the clinical performance and survival of the self-adhesive bulk-fill composite Surefil One compared to conventional composite, Neo Spectra, in class V restorations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty-four carious cervical lesions in 15 patients were divided into two groups in a split-mouth study: Group I (27 restorations) used Neo Spectra ST HV composite with Prime&Bond Universal adhesive, while Group II (27 restorations) utilized Surefil One. The study included a 1-year follow-up, with assessments at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria and Visual Analogue Scores for patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included Chi-Square test, paired t-tests, and repeated measures ANOVA, with significance set at α = 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both composites performed clinically well over the 12 months. Neo Spectra demonstrated superior performance to Surefil One in color match, marginal integrity, discoloration, and surface roughness. However, both materials showed similar results in retention, secondary caries, and marginal integrity. Both materials showed no significant differences in intergroup comparisons across baseline, 6-month, and 12-month assessments and no statistically significant changes in VAS scores over time within each group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While Surefil One and Neo Spectra exhibited comparable clinical functionality, Neo Spectra demonstrated superior esthetic quality. Both materials achieved equivalent patient satisfaction levels, implying the need for further investigations to assess their long-term clinical performance.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Assessing the clinical performance of Surefil One and Neo Spectra composites in class V cavities is very valuable. Understanding the behavior of such materials in non-load-bearing areas will help clinicians make evidence-based decisions about selecting restorative materials that balance durability and esthetics according to each patient's needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13472","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This randomized controlled trial assessed the clinical performance and survival of the self-adhesive bulk-fill composite Surefil One compared to conventional composite, Neo Spectra, in class V restorations.

Materials and methods: Fifty-four carious cervical lesions in 15 patients were divided into two groups in a split-mouth study: Group I (27 restorations) used Neo Spectra ST HV composite with Prime&Bond Universal adhesive, while Group II (27 restorations) utilized Surefil One. The study included a 1-year follow-up, with assessments at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria and Visual Analogue Scores for patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included Chi-Square test, paired t-tests, and repeated measures ANOVA, with significance set at α = 0.05.

Results: Both composites performed clinically well over the 12 months. Neo Spectra demonstrated superior performance to Surefil One in color match, marginal integrity, discoloration, and surface roughness. However, both materials showed similar results in retention, secondary caries, and marginal integrity. Both materials showed no significant differences in intergroup comparisons across baseline, 6-month, and 12-month assessments and no statistically significant changes in VAS scores over time within each group.

Conclusions: While Surefil One and Neo Spectra exhibited comparable clinical functionality, Neo Spectra demonstrated superior esthetic quality. Both materials achieved equivalent patient satisfaction levels, implying the need for further investigations to assess their long-term clinical performance.

Clinical significance: Assessing the clinical performance of Surefil One and Neo Spectra composites in class V cavities is very valuable. Understanding the behavior of such materials in non-load-bearing areas will help clinicians make evidence-based decisions about selecting restorative materials that balance durability and esthetics according to each patient's needs.

自粘体填充复合材料与传统纳米复合材料在颈椎中的临床评价——一项随机对照临床试验。
目的:本随机对照试验评估自粘体填充复合材料Surefil One与传统复合材料Neo Spectra在V级修复中的临床表现和生存期。材料与方法:将宫颈54例病变患者15例分为两组,第一组(27例)使用Neo Spectra ST HV复合材料与Prime&Bond通用粘接剂,第二组(27例)使用Surefil One。该研究包括1年的随访,在基线、6个月和12个月进行评估,使用修改后的美国公共卫生服务标准和患者满意度的视觉模拟评分。统计学分析采用卡方检验、配对t检验和重复测量方差分析,显著性设置为α = 0.05。结果:两种复合材料在12个月内临床表现良好。Neo Spectra在颜色匹配、边缘完整性、变色和表面粗糙度方面表现出优于Surefil One的性能。然而,两种材料在固位、继发性龋齿和边缘完整性方面的结果相似。两种材料在基线、6个月和12个月评估的组间比较中均无显著差异,各组VAS评分随时间的变化无统计学意义。结论:虽然Surefil One和Neo Spectra表现出相当的临床功能,但Neo Spectra表现出更好的美学质量。两种材料都达到了相同的患者满意度水平,这意味着需要进一步的研究来评估它们的长期临床表现。临床意义:评价Surefil One和Neo Spectra复合材料在V类腔中的临床应用价值。了解这些材料在非承重区域的行为将有助于临床医生根据每位患者的需求做出基于证据的决定,选择平衡耐用性和美观的修复材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
124
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) is the longest standing peer-reviewed journal devoted solely to advancing the knowledge and practice of esthetic dentistry. Its goal is to provide the very latest evidence-based information in the realm of contemporary interdisciplinary esthetic dentistry through high quality clinical papers, sound research reports and educational features. The range of topics covered in the journal includes: - Interdisciplinary esthetic concepts - Implants - Conservative adhesive restorations - Tooth Whitening - Prosthodontic materials and techniques - Dental materials - Orthodontic, periodontal and endodontic esthetics - Esthetics related research - Innovations in esthetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信