IADR Abstract Archives
3 Month Follow-up Clinical Performance Occlusal Bulk-fill Composites According Ryge
Objectives: Compare a 3-month follow-up of clinical performance in occlusal restorations with two Bulk- Fill composite and nanofilled composite according to Ryge criteria.
Methods: 48 voluntary patients, with 3 occlusal caries lesions in posterior teeth. The depths of the lesions were between 2.5mm-4.0mm with antagonist teeth. Were distributed randomly: Group TB: 48 Resins Bulkfill Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent), Group FB: 48 restorations Filtek Bulkfill (3M-Espe) and Group control Z350: 48 restorations Filtek Z350 (3M-Espe). The restorative procedure was performed with anesthesia and absolute isolation. All cavities were conditioned in enamel for 20 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid and then rinsed, dried and applied Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M-Espe) in cavities of groups FB and Z350, while in the cavities of the TB group was applied AdheSE Bond Universal adhesive (Ivoclar-Vivadent) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The TB and FB restorations were done with an only layer (maximum deep 4mm) and Z350 were restored with 2 mm deep multilayer. Restorations were polymerized for 30 seconds with a Bluephase light-curing unit (Ivoclar-Vivadent) with an intensity of 1.100mW/cm2. Calibrated operator (Kappa>0.8) evaluated the restorations by Ryge criteria (marginal staining and adaptation, postoperative sensibility and caries) two weeks and 3 months later. The Kruskal Wallis test was used for the statistical analysis of the information software SPSS 21.0 (95 %level of significance).
Results: For follow-up, 41 patients were evaluated (N=123). At 3 months 97,5 % of the group FB and Z350 were evaluated alpha in all parameters; while in the group TB it was 100 %. One case was bravo in marginal staining. There were no significant differences between the groups (p >0.05).
Conclusions: The two bulk-filled composite-resin occlusal restorations had no significant difference in a 3-month follow-up performance compared with the nanofilled control restorations evaluated by Ryge.
Methods: 48 voluntary patients, with 3 occlusal caries lesions in posterior teeth. The depths of the lesions were between 2.5mm-4.0mm with antagonist teeth. Were distributed randomly: Group TB: 48 Resins Bulkfill Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent), Group FB: 48 restorations Filtek Bulkfill (3M-Espe) and Group control Z350: 48 restorations Filtek Z350 (3M-Espe). The restorative procedure was performed with anesthesia and absolute isolation. All cavities were conditioned in enamel for 20 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid and then rinsed, dried and applied Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M-Espe) in cavities of groups FB and Z350, while in the cavities of the TB group was applied AdheSE Bond Universal adhesive (Ivoclar-Vivadent) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The TB and FB restorations were done with an only layer (maximum deep 4mm) and Z350 were restored with 2 mm deep multilayer. Restorations were polymerized for 30 seconds with a Bluephase light-curing unit (Ivoclar-Vivadent) with an intensity of 1.100mW/cm2. Calibrated operator (Kappa>0.8) evaluated the restorations by Ryge criteria (marginal staining and adaptation, postoperative sensibility and caries) two weeks and 3 months later. The Kruskal Wallis test was used for the statistical analysis of the information software SPSS 21.0 (95 %level of significance).
Results: For follow-up, 41 patients were evaluated (N=123). At 3 months 97,5 % of the group FB and Z350 were evaluated alpha in all parameters; while in the group TB it was 100 %. One case was bravo in marginal staining. There were no significant differences between the groups (p >0.05).
Conclusions: The two bulk-filled composite-resin occlusal restorations had no significant difference in a 3-month follow-up performance compared with the nanofilled control restorations evaluated by Ryge.