IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Evaluation of an Experimental Urethane Dimethacrylate Resin Based Composite
Objectives: To evaluate the performance of an experimental urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) based composite resin (E) in comparison to TPH3 (T), a Bis-GMA-based composite resin (Dentsply Caulk) in a 24-month randomized and double-blind clinical trial.
Methods: Fifty adult patients were recruited and 100 Class I and Class II restorations were randomly placed (50 each in groups E and T). Prime & Bond Elect (Dentsply Caulk) was used as the bonding agent for all restorations. Outcome evaluations followed the Modified USPHS guidelines for anatomic form, color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, proximal contact, polishability, caries, sensitivity, gingival index and vitality response. Two calibrated evaluators performed post-restorative evaluations at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The outcome variables were compared between the two groups using X2 test with Yates corrections.
Results: Anatomic form, color match, marginal integrity and marginal discoloration were classified as Alpha in more than 92% of the restorations for both composites at 24-month followup. Proximal contact and polishability were the only two variables that had less than 90% of the restorations classified as Alpha after two years. Proximal contacts were classified as Alpha in 84%, Bravo in 13.6%, and Charlie in 2.3% of the restorations in group E, as compared to 81.0%, 16.6% and 2.4% in group T, respectively. Polishability was classified as Alpha in 86.2%, Bravo in 9.1%, and Charlie in 4.7% of the restorations in group E, as compared to 92.9%, 4.7% and 2.4% in group T, respectively. None of the outcome measures showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05). No caries or sensitivity were detected in either group after 24 months.
Conclusions: The experimental UDMA-based composite performed equally well as the Bis-GMA-based TPH3, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 24 months in all the outcomes measures.
Methods: Fifty adult patients were recruited and 100 Class I and Class II restorations were randomly placed (50 each in groups E and T). Prime & Bond Elect (Dentsply Caulk) was used as the bonding agent for all restorations. Outcome evaluations followed the Modified USPHS guidelines for anatomic form, color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, proximal contact, polishability, caries, sensitivity, gingival index and vitality response. Two calibrated evaluators performed post-restorative evaluations at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The outcome variables were compared between the two groups using X2 test with Yates corrections.
Results: Anatomic form, color match, marginal integrity and marginal discoloration were classified as Alpha in more than 92% of the restorations for both composites at 24-month followup. Proximal contact and polishability were the only two variables that had less than 90% of the restorations classified as Alpha after two years. Proximal contacts were classified as Alpha in 84%, Bravo in 13.6%, and Charlie in 2.3% of the restorations in group E, as compared to 81.0%, 16.6% and 2.4% in group T, respectively. Polishability was classified as Alpha in 86.2%, Bravo in 9.1%, and Charlie in 4.7% of the restorations in group E, as compared to 92.9%, 4.7% and 2.4% in group T, respectively. None of the outcome measures showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05). No caries or sensitivity were detected in either group after 24 months.
Conclusions: The experimental UDMA-based composite performed equally well as the Bis-GMA-based TPH3, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 24 months in all the outcomes measures.