IADR Abstract Archives
Two-year Multicentre Clinical Evaluation of Glass Hybrid System vs. Resin Composite
Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of a glass hybrid material, EQUIA Forte restorative system versus a resin composite, Tetric EvoCeram after two-year follow up. Two-surface restorations in the molar region in a split-mouth design were evaluated.
Methods: This clinical study was conducted in four different dental schools: Zagreb, Croatia; Milan, Italy; Izmir, Turkey and Belgrade, Serbia. Patients (n=180) in need of 2 two-surface restorations in the molar region of the same jaw received one glass hybrid restoration (EQUIA Forte, GC) and one resin composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent). After cavity preparation, restorations were placed in bulk for the glass hybrid and in 2-mm incremental layers for the resin composite. The restorations were evaluated by two independent evaluators in each centre according to the FDI-2 criteria for aesthetic, functional and biological properties at baseline and two years. Statistical analysis was performed using a sign test (p<0.05).
Results: After two years, restorations from three dental schools in 120 patients were evaluated. At the two-year recall, regarding restorations and tooth survival,there was no statistically significant difference between the glass hybrid restorative system and resin composite (p>0.05). However, statistically significant difference between two investigated restorative materials was found for one of the functional properties, fracture of material and retention with composite restorations showing more clinically excellent scores in comparison to glass hybrid system (p<0.05).
Conclusions: After two-year follow up, both glass hybrid restorative system and resin composite performed clinically well in two-surface restorations in the molar region.
Methods: This clinical study was conducted in four different dental schools: Zagreb, Croatia; Milan, Italy; Izmir, Turkey and Belgrade, Serbia. Patients (n=180) in need of 2 two-surface restorations in the molar region of the same jaw received one glass hybrid restoration (EQUIA Forte, GC) and one resin composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent). After cavity preparation, restorations were placed in bulk for the glass hybrid and in 2-mm incremental layers for the resin composite. The restorations were evaluated by two independent evaluators in each centre according to the FDI-2 criteria for aesthetic, functional and biological properties at baseline and two years. Statistical analysis was performed using a sign test (p<0.05).
Results: After two years, restorations from three dental schools in 120 patients were evaluated. At the two-year recall, regarding restorations and tooth survival,there was no statistically significant difference between the glass hybrid restorative system and resin composite (p>0.05). However, statistically significant difference between two investigated restorative materials was found for one of the functional properties, fracture of material and retention with composite restorations showing more clinically excellent scores in comparison to glass hybrid system (p<0.05).
Conclusions: After two-year follow up, both glass hybrid restorative system and resin composite performed clinically well in two-surface restorations in the molar region.