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

IF 2.5 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 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":55604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","volume":"23 5","pages":"389-396"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2000185","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","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

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

6.10%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： New materials and applications for adhesion are profoundly changing the way dentistry is delivered. Bonding techniques, which have long been restricted to the tooth hard tissues, enamel, and dentin, have obvious applications in operative and preventive dentistry, as well as in esthetic and pediatric dentistry, prosthodontics, and orthodontics. The current development of adhesive techniques for soft tissues and slow-releasing agents will expand applications to include periodontics and oral surgery. Scientifically sound, peer-reviewed articles explore the latest innovations in these emerging fields.