IADR Abstract Archives
12-Month Clinical Trial of Flowable VS Packable Nanohybrid Resin Composite
Objectives: The aim of the present study is to compare 12 month clinical performance of flowable nanohybrid resin composite with packable resin composite in Class I occlusal cavities.
Methods: Thirty-seven patients with at least two similar-sized restorations occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 74 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 37 with nanofilled flowable resin composite (G-Aenial Universal Flo), and 37 with nanofilled packable resin composite (GC-Solare X). G-Aenial Universal Flo and GC Solare-X were used with a self etch adhesive, G-Bond. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months according to modified US Public Health Service Criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The two restorative materials for each category were compared using the Chi square test at the significance level of 0.05.
Results:
All materials showed only minor changes, and no statistically significant differences were detected between their clinical performance at baseline and after 12 months . Intra-system comparisons between baseline and 12 months showed declining clinical performance scores in the restorations with all systems.
Conclusions: The two restorative systems showed a statistically similar clinical performance at 12 months. However, further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.
Methods: Thirty-seven patients with at least two similar-sized restorations occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 74 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 37 with nanofilled flowable resin composite (G-Aenial Universal Flo), and 37 with nanofilled packable resin composite (GC-Solare X). G-Aenial Universal Flo and GC Solare-X were used with a self etch adhesive, G-Bond. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months according to modified US Public Health Service Criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The two restorative materials for each category were compared using the Chi square test at the significance level of 0.05.
Results:
All materials showed only minor changes, and no statistically significant differences were detected between their clinical performance at baseline and after 12 months . Intra-system comparisons between baseline and 12 months showed declining clinical performance scores in the restorations with all systems.
Conclusions: The two restorative systems showed a statistically similar clinical performance at 12 months. However, further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.