IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Assesment Of Sealed Composite Restorations At 18 Months: A Clinical Trial
Objectives: The aim of this study is to observe clinical quality of sealed restorations with flowable composite and resin based sealant versus a control group according FDI criteria for secondary caries, after 18 months of the treatment.
Methods: In this study 105 composite restorations were analyzed with marginal defects 3 or 4 according FDI criteria. 35 patients with 3 treatments each. Which were: Group A: Flowable resin based nanoparticle composite (Single bond universal adhesive + Fitek flow Z350XT (3M ESPE)), Group B: Resin based sealant (Single bond universal adhesive + Clinpro sealant (3M ESPE)) and Group C: control, no treatment. These were performed under absolute isolation with the protocols specified by the manufacturer. FDI Clinical evaluation was executed with two explorers: 150EX (Ø 0.15mm, Deppeler, Switzerland) and 250EX (Ø 0.25mm, Deppeler, Switzerland).
These were assessed by calibrated operators (kappa above 0.8).
Results: In the 18-month evaluation 26 patients were examined 72,6% (77 restorations) FDI results Secondary caries: Group A FDI= 1: 33.77%, 2: 00%. Group B FDI= 1: 31.17%, 2: 2.60%. Group: C, FDI 1: 37.14%, 2: 32.35%, 3: 25%. Group C: FDI 1: 31.17%, 2: 1.30% (p=0.317). Secondary caries was present on 3.9% of restorations.
Conclusions: The sealed restorations showed similar behavior at 18 months’ evaluation, whether resin based sealant or flowable composite. In spite of the percentages, secondary caries was present in 2 restorations sealed with resin based sealant.
Methods: In this study 105 composite restorations were analyzed with marginal defects 3 or 4 according FDI criteria. 35 patients with 3 treatments each. Which were: Group A: Flowable resin based nanoparticle composite (Single bond universal adhesive + Fitek flow Z350XT (3M ESPE)), Group B: Resin based sealant (Single bond universal adhesive + Clinpro sealant (3M ESPE)) and Group C: control, no treatment. These were performed under absolute isolation with the protocols specified by the manufacturer. FDI Clinical evaluation was executed with two explorers: 150EX (Ø 0.15mm, Deppeler, Switzerland) and 250EX (Ø 0.25mm, Deppeler, Switzerland).
These were assessed by calibrated operators (kappa above 0.8).
Results: In the 18-month evaluation 26 patients were examined 72,6% (77 restorations) FDI results Secondary caries: Group A FDI= 1: 33.77%, 2: 00%. Group B FDI= 1: 31.17%, 2: 2.60%. Group: C, FDI 1: 37.14%, 2: 32.35%, 3: 25%. Group C: FDI 1: 31.17%, 2: 1.30% (p=0.317). Secondary caries was present on 3.9% of restorations.
Conclusions: The sealed restorations showed similar behavior at 18 months’ evaluation, whether resin based sealant or flowable composite. In spite of the percentages, secondary caries was present in 2 restorations sealed with resin based sealant.