Clinical evaluation of direct composite restorations and inlays: Results at 12 months

E. Karaarslan, E. Ertaş, B. Bulucu
{"title":"Clinical evaluation of direct composite restorations and inlays: Results at 12 months","authors":"E. Karaarslan, E. Ertaş, B. Bulucu","doi":"10.4103/2321-4619.136632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Class II direct and indirect composite restorations according to the United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS). Materials and Methods: Seventy patients were included and four different composite resins, P60 (FP), SureFil Posterior (SP), Gradia Posterior (GP), and Bisco Aelite LS Packable (BAP) were used as direct restorative material. All of the composite resins except BAP were used as indirect restorative material. Instead of BAP, Tescera Laboratory composites were polymerized in Tescera inlay oven. All restorations were evaluated according to USPHS criteria during a one-year period. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between direct and indirect composite restorations according to the retention, marginal discoloration, surface staining, proximal contact continuity, and secondary caries. Indirect restorations have less surface roughness, postoperative sensitivity (P < 0.05), and soft tissue irritation (P < 0.1) than direct ones. Conclusion: The clinical performances of the indirect restorations were more satisfactory than the direct restorations.","PeriodicalId":17076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Restorative Dentistry","volume":"334 1","pages":"70 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-4619.136632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of Class II direct and indirect composite restorations according to the United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS). Materials and Methods: Seventy patients were included and four different composite resins, P60 (FP), SureFil Posterior (SP), Gradia Posterior (GP), and Bisco Aelite LS Packable (BAP) were used as direct restorative material. All of the composite resins except BAP were used as indirect restorative material. Instead of BAP, Tescera Laboratory composites were polymerized in Tescera inlay oven. All restorations were evaluated according to USPHS criteria during a one-year period. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between direct and indirect composite restorations according to the retention, marginal discoloration, surface staining, proximal contact continuity, and secondary caries. Indirect restorations have less surface roughness, postoperative sensitivity (P < 0.05), and soft tissue irritation (P < 0.1) than direct ones. Conclusion: The clinical performances of the indirect restorations were more satisfactory than the direct restorations.
直接复合修复体和嵌体的临床评价:12个月的结果
背景:本研究的目的是根据美国公共卫生服务标准(USPHS)比较II类直接和间接复合修复体的临床表现。材料和方法:采用P60 (FP)、SureFil Posterior (SP)、gradient Posterior (GP)和Bisco Aelite LS Packable (BAP)四种不同的复合树脂作为直接修复材料。除BAP外,其余复合树脂均作为间接修复材料。代替BAP, Tescera实验室复合材料在Tescera镶嵌炉中聚合。在一年的时间内,根据USPHS标准对所有修复体进行评估。结果:直接复合修复体与间接复合修复体在固位、边缘变色、表面染色、近端接触连续性、继发龋等方面差异无统计学意义。间接修复体的表面粗糙度、术后敏感性(P < 0.05)和软组织刺激性(P < 0.1)均低于直接修复体。结论:间接修复比直接修复效果好。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信