IADR Abstract Archives
Randomized 2-Year Follow-up of Posterior Bulk-Filled Resin Composite Restorations
Objectives: The aim of this 2 year prospective clinical follow up, intraindividual comparison, study was to evaluate the performance of an ormocer resin composite (RC) placed with and without a new flowable bulk filling RC in Class II and I restorations.
Methods: Each of 82 participants received at least two, as similar as possible, Class II (104) or I (76) restorations, placed by 2 operators The cavities in the pairs were chosen at random to be restored with an ormocer RC (CeramX+, CX) or with a flowable bulk filling RC (SDR) covered with CX. The adhesive used in both groups were a 1-step SEA (Xeno V+). The bulk-fill RC was placed in 4mm layers and the ormocer in 2 mm layers. Each layer was cured for 20s. The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 1 and 2 years.
Results: Two patient drop outs with 4 restorations (2SDR/CX, 2CX) were registered. Three SDR/CX (3P) and one CX (1M) failed during the 2 years, all Class II. The main reason of failure was cusp fracture (3P, including 1 with secondary caries) and RC fracture (M). AFR for SDR/CX and CX was 1.5% and 0.5%, respectively. No statistical significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated RC (Friedman test).
Conclusions: The bulk filling technique showed good clinical performance during the 2 year evaluation, comparable to the direct ormocer only restorations.
The study was supported by DeTrey/Dentsply.
Methods: Each of 82 participants received at least two, as similar as possible, Class II (104) or I (76) restorations, placed by 2 operators The cavities in the pairs were chosen at random to be restored with an ormocer RC (CeramX+, CX) or with a flowable bulk filling RC (SDR) covered with CX. The adhesive used in both groups were a 1-step SEA (Xeno V+). The bulk-fill RC was placed in 4mm layers and the ormocer in 2 mm layers. Each layer was cured for 20s. The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 1 and 2 years.
Results: Two patient drop outs with 4 restorations (2SDR/CX, 2CX) were registered. Three SDR/CX (3P) and one CX (1M) failed during the 2 years, all Class II. The main reason of failure was cusp fracture (3P, including 1 with secondary caries) and RC fracture (M). AFR for SDR/CX and CX was 1.5% and 0.5%, respectively. No statistical significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated RC (Friedman test).
Conclusions: The bulk filling technique showed good clinical performance during the 2 year evaluation, comparable to the direct ormocer only restorations.
The study was supported by DeTrey/Dentsply.