Bulk-fill Composites Compared to a Nanohybrid Composite in Class-II Cavities - A Two-year Follow-Up Study.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS

ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.3290/j.jad.b2000185

Lea Hoffmann, Cornelia Neuerer, Katrin Heck, Karl-Heinz Kunzelmann

{"title":"Bulk-fill Composites Compared to a Nanohybrid Composite in Class-II Cavities - A Two-year Follow-Up Study.","authors":"Lea Hoffmann, Cornelia Neuerer, Katrin Heck, Karl-Heinz Kunzelmann","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b2000185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare different concepts of direct composite restorations in class-II cavities using bulk-fill composites and a conventional composite with different layer thicknesses in a clinical study over a period of 2 years.Materials and methods: A low-viscosity (SDR), a high-viscosity bulk-fill (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) and a conventional nanohybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram) were randomly assigned and placed in different layer thicknesses up to 4 mm in 160 class-II cavities in 94 patients. Restorations were clinically examined at baseline (n = 160), after 12 (n = 150) and 24 months (n = 148) and evaluated according to eight selected FDI criteria. In case of complete loss of the restoration or irreversible pulpitic symptoms, the restoration was rated as failure; repair was considered as relative failure.Results: The materials investigated showed no significant differences regarding the FDI scores and failure rate during the entire follow-up. After 12 months, 7 failures and after 24 months a total of 8 failures were observed. After 2 years, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with a 4-mm layer thickness and SDR in combination with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with a 2-mm layer thickness exhibited a non-significant tendency towards increased hypersensitivity (FDI score 5) as compared to the reference material Tetric EvoCeram with a 2-mm layer thickness (p = 0.051; Kruskal-Wallis test).Conclusion: The clinical stability of bulk-fill materials in layers up to 4 mm is comparable to nanohybrid composites after 2 years.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"23 5","pages":"389-396"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2000185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: To compare different concepts of direct composite restorations in class-II cavities using bulk-fill composites and a conventional composite with different layer thicknesses in a clinical study over a period of 2 years.

Materials and methods: A low-viscosity (SDR), a high-viscosity bulk-fill (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) and a conventional nanohybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram) were randomly assigned and placed in different layer thicknesses up to 4 mm in 160 class-II cavities in 94 patients. Restorations were clinically examined at baseline (n = 160), after 12 (n = 150) and 24 months (n = 148) and evaluated according to eight selected FDI criteria. In case of complete loss of the restoration or irreversible pulpitic symptoms, the restoration was rated as failure; repair was considered as relative failure.

Results: The materials investigated showed no significant differences regarding the FDI scores and failure rate during the entire follow-up. After 12 months, 7 failures and after 24 months a total of 8 failures were observed. After 2 years, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with a 4-mm layer thickness and SDR in combination with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with a 2-mm layer thickness exhibited a non-significant tendency towards increased hypersensitivity (FDI score 5) as compared to the reference material Tetric EvoCeram with a 2-mm layer thickness (p = 0.051; Kruskal-Wallis test).

Conclusion: The clinical stability of bulk-fill materials in layers up to 4 mm is comparable to nanohybrid composites after 2 years.

查看原文本刊更多论文

体填充复合材料与纳米复合材料在ii类空腔中的比较——一项为期两年的随访研究。

目的:在一项为期2年的临床研究中，比较不同概念的ii类直接复合材料cavities使用块体填充复合材料和不同层厚的常规复合材料。材料和方法:将低粘度(SDR)、高粘度填充材料(Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill)和传统的纳米混合复合材料(Tetric EvoCeram)随机分配到94例患者的160个ii类腔中，并将其放置在不同厚度的层中，厚度可达4mm。在基线(n = 160)、12个月(n = 150)和24个月(n = 148)后对修复体进行临床检查，并根据8个选定的FDI标准进行评估。如果修复体完全丧失或出现不可逆的牙髓炎症状，则判定修复失败;修复被认为是相对失败。结果:调查资料显示，在整个随访期间，FDI得分和失败率无显著差异。12个月后观察到7例失败，24个月后观察到8例失败。2年后，与标准材料2毫米厚度的Tetric EvoCeram相比，层厚为4毫米的Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill和SDR结合层厚为2毫米的Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill表现出不显著的超敏性增加趋势(FDI得分5)(p = 0.051;克鲁斯卡尔-沃利斯测试)。结论:厚度达4 mm的块状填充材料的临床稳定性与纳米杂化复合材料相当。

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

ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)

CiteScore

9.40

自引率

2.10%

发文量

464