IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Nanofil-composite vs Giomer Restorative System – Six-month Analysis
Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a nanofil-composite vs a Giomer restorative system in restoring non-carious cervical lesions, these results are the data set from the first 6-months of the 18-month study.
Methods: The first 6-months of this 18-month randomized, controlled, split mouth, clinical trial are reported. Visits include: screening (V1), restoration placement (V2), 6 months follow-up (V3) and 18-months follow-up (V4). Cervical lesions were restored with Giomer based BEAUTIFIL II LS (SHOFU INC., Kyoto, Japan) (Group 1) or nanofil composite based Filtek™ Supreme (3M, St. Paul, MN) (Group 2). Restorations were placed following manufacturer’s guidelines. Clinical assessments were done by blinded examiners other than the examiner that placed the restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to clinical criteria by Hickel et al. including esthetic properties (surface luster, surface staining, marginal staining, color match and anatomical form), functional properties (fracture of material and retention, marginal adaptation, patient’s view) and biologic properties (recurrence of caries, tooth integrity, adjacent mucosa). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the Hickel criteria between groups.
Results: 49 subjects received both Group 1 and Group 2 restorations (V2) and 24 of those subjects have completed V3. This 6-month analysis is based on all completed cases from V2 and V3. The average age of subjects were 55.9 years. 51% were female and 49% were male. 83% were non-smokers. Among all categories, no changes were reported in fracture of material/retention, recurrence of caries and tooth integrity categories. Remaining Hickel criteria comparisons are presented in the table. No statistically significant differences were reported in all categories between Group 1 and Group 2 at both V2 and V3.
Conclusions: Clinical performance comparison of non-carious cervical lesion restorations between nanofil and Giomer based restorative systems showed no statistical differences according to Hickel criteria at 6-month analysis. Clinical comparisons will be continued at 18-month post-treatment.
Methods: The first 6-months of this 18-month randomized, controlled, split mouth, clinical trial are reported. Visits include: screening (V1), restoration placement (V2), 6 months follow-up (V3) and 18-months follow-up (V4). Cervical lesions were restored with Giomer based BEAUTIFIL II LS (SHOFU INC., Kyoto, Japan) (Group 1) or nanofil composite based Filtek™ Supreme (3M, St. Paul, MN) (Group 2). Restorations were placed following manufacturer’s guidelines. Clinical assessments were done by blinded examiners other than the examiner that placed the restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to clinical criteria by Hickel et al. including esthetic properties (surface luster, surface staining, marginal staining, color match and anatomical form), functional properties (fracture of material and retention, marginal adaptation, patient’s view) and biologic properties (recurrence of caries, tooth integrity, adjacent mucosa). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the Hickel criteria between groups.
Results: 49 subjects received both Group 1 and Group 2 restorations (V2) and 24 of those subjects have completed V3. This 6-month analysis is based on all completed cases from V2 and V3. The average age of subjects were 55.9 years. 51% were female and 49% were male. 83% were non-smokers. Among all categories, no changes were reported in fracture of material/retention, recurrence of caries and tooth integrity categories. Remaining Hickel criteria comparisons are presented in the table. No statistically significant differences were reported in all categories between Group 1 and Group 2 at both V2 and V3.
Conclusions: Clinical performance comparison of non-carious cervical lesion restorations between nanofil and Giomer based restorative systems showed no statistical differences according to Hickel criteria at 6-month analysis. Clinical comparisons will be continued at 18-month post-treatment.
IMAGES
3177597_File000000.jpg
3177597_File000000.jpg