IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Report of Class II Restorations Made Using an Injectable Resin Composite
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a composite resin (G-ænial Universal Injectable, GC) vs a control (G-ænial Universal Flo, GC) to restore Class II Cavities. Both materials were light-curing composite resin. G-ænial Universal Injectable, is a relatively new type of filling material that does not slump after being extruded from the tip.
Methods: Sixty patients in need to restore at least two Class II were selected. The patients were randomly divided in two groups of thirty samples each by materials (Group 1: G-ænial Universal Injectable and Group 2: G-ænial Universal Flo,). Both resin composites were used in combination with the Universal bonding system G-Premio BOND (GC). The cavities were filled under rubber dam and then finished and polished following manufacturer’s instructions. The patients were recalled at 6, 12 and 24 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 2 year. The retention rate for all restorations was 100% after 2 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 tested products. The results show that the injectable resin composite system has very good and reliable clinical performances. The two systems were statistically equivalent after 2 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 two Class II were selected. The patients were randomly divided in two groups of thirty samples each by materials (Group 1: G-ænial Universal Injectable and Group 2: G-ænial Universal Flo,). Both resin composites were used in combination with the Universal bonding system G-Premio BOND (GC). The cavities were filled under rubber dam and then finished and polished following manufacturer’s instructions. The patients were recalled at 6, 12 and 24 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 2 year. The retention rate for all restorations was 100% after 2 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 tested products. The results show that the injectable resin composite system has very good and reliable clinical performances. The two systems were statistically equivalent after 2 years of clinical service. Longer clinical data are needed to confirm the outstanding performance of the new injectable resin composite.