IADR Abstract Archives
Injectable Resin Composite, Preliminary Clinical Report: 1 Year Follow-Up.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a new composite resin (G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC) vs a control (G-aenial Universal Flow, GC) to restore no carious Class V lesions. Both materials were light-curing composite resin. The G-aenial Universal Injectable Flow is a new type of filling material that does not flow after being extruded from the tip.
Methods: Sixty patients in need to restore at least one class V not carious lesion and one Class II were selected. The patients were randomly divided in two groups based on the restoration material (Group 1: G-aenial Universal Injectable and Group 2: G-aenial Universal Flow) and in two subgroups divided by type of cavity (SubGroup A: Class V and SubGroup B: Class II) all in combination with the Universal bonding system G-Premio Bond (GC) (n=15). The cavities were filled under rubber dam and then finished and polished following manufacturer’s instructions. The patients were recalled at 6 and 12 months and Ryge criteria (Interproximal contacts, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, marginal stain, secondary caries, post-op sensitivity) were scored and recorded. Statistical analysis was made with X2 test (p>0.05).
Results: The recall rate was 100% after 1 year. The retention rate for all restorations was 100% after 1 year. Success rates of both groups was 100% without any biological or technical complications. No statistically significant differences were found between the two Groups for any clinical parameter.
Conclusions: Within the limitation of this short-term evaluation, there was no significant clinical difference between adhesives. The results show that the two flowable resin composite systems have very good and reliable clinical performances. The two systems were statistically equivalent after 1 years of clinical service. Longer clinical data are needed to confirm the outstanding performance of the new injectable resin composite.
Methods: Sixty patients in need to restore at least one class V not carious lesion and one Class II were selected. The patients were randomly divided in two groups based on the restoration material (Group 1: G-aenial Universal Injectable and Group 2: G-aenial Universal Flow) and in two subgroups divided by type of cavity (SubGroup A: Class V and SubGroup B: Class II) all in combination with the Universal bonding system G-Premio Bond (GC) (n=15). The cavities were filled under rubber dam and then finished and polished following manufacturer’s instructions. The patients were recalled at 6 and 12 months and Ryge criteria (Interproximal contacts, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, marginal stain, secondary caries, post-op sensitivity) were scored and recorded. Statistical analysis was made with X2 test (p>0.05).
Results: The recall rate was 100% after 1 year. The retention rate for all restorations was 100% after 1 year. Success rates of both groups was 100% without any biological or technical complications. No statistically significant differences were found between the two Groups for any clinical parameter.
Conclusions: Within the limitation of this short-term evaluation, there was no significant clinical difference between adhesives. The results show that the two flowable resin composite systems have very good and reliable clinical performances. The two systems were statistically equivalent after 1 years of clinical service. Longer clinical data are needed to confirm the outstanding performance of the new injectable resin composite.