IADR Abstract Archives
Compare Six Month Follow-Up Clinical Performance Class V Bulk-Fill Composites
Objectives: Compare to 6-month follow-up of clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesion (LCNC) restorations with two Bulk- Fill composite and nanofilled composite by Ryge criteria.
Methods: 46 voluntary patients, with 3 caries lesions in posterior teeth. The depths of the lesions were ≥ 1.5mm with antagonist teeth. Were distributed randomly: Group TB: 51 Resins Bulkfill Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent), Group FB: 51 restorations Filtek Bulkfill (3M-Espe) and Group control Z350: 51 restorations Filtek Z350 (3M-Espe). The restorative procedure was done with anesthesia and absolute isolation. All cavities were conditioned in enamel for 20 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid and then rinsed, dried and applied adhesive Single Bond Universal (3M-Espe) in cavities of groups FB and Z350, while in the cavities of the TB group was applied adhesive AdheSE Bond Universal (Ivoclar-Vivadent), according manufactures instructions The TB and FB restorations were done with an only layer and Z350 was restored with 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 (MS) and adaptation (AM), anatomy (A), postoperative sensibility (S) and caries (C) two weeks and 3 month later. The Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for the statistical analysis of the information software SPSS 21.0 (95 %of significance).
Results: For six-month follow-up 46 patients were evaluated (N=138). Were evaluated alpha for: AM, 97,8 % for three groups; MT, Z350 was 97,8 % TB and FB 100%, SP, 95,6 for three groups; A and C there were 100% for three groups. There were not significant differences between the groups and baseline-6 month (p >0.05).
Conclusions: Two bulk-fill composites had not significant difference in 6-month follow-up compared with nanofilled control restorations evaluated by Ryge.
Methods: 46 voluntary patients, with 3 caries lesions in posterior teeth. The depths of the lesions were ≥ 1.5mm with antagonist teeth. Were distributed randomly: Group TB: 51 Resins Bulkfill Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent), Group FB: 51 restorations Filtek Bulkfill (3M-Espe) and Group control Z350: 51 restorations Filtek Z350 (3M-Espe). The restorative procedure was done with anesthesia and absolute isolation. All cavities were conditioned in enamel for 20 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid and then rinsed, dried and applied adhesive Single Bond Universal (3M-Espe) in cavities of groups FB and Z350, while in the cavities of the TB group was applied adhesive AdheSE Bond Universal (Ivoclar-Vivadent), according manufactures instructions The TB and FB restorations were done with an only layer and Z350 was restored with 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 (MS) and adaptation (AM), anatomy (A), postoperative sensibility (S) and caries (C) two weeks and 3 month later. The Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for the statistical analysis of the information software SPSS 21.0 (95 %of significance).
Results: For six-month follow-up 46 patients were evaluated (N=138). Were evaluated alpha for: AM, 97,8 % for three groups; MT, Z350 was 97,8 % TB and FB 100%, SP, 95,6 for three groups; A and C there were 100% for three groups. There were not significant differences between the groups and baseline-6 month (p >0.05).
Conclusions: Two bulk-fill composites had not significant difference in 6-month follow-up compared with nanofilled control restorations evaluated by Ryge.