IADR Abstract Archives
Effectiveness Of Two Sealants In Marginal Defects Of Composites
Objectives: To compare secondary caries and marginal adaptation of flowable resin nanofilled (FR) composite and pit and fissure resin-based sealant (CS) after 24 months on marginal defects of composite restorations.
Methods: Prospective, controlled, randomized study where 35 patients with 105 restorations were examine. Inclusion criteria: High risk patient with at least two posterior teeth restorations with marginal adaptation 3 or 4 according with the FDI criteria. Exclusion criteria: contraindication for dental treatment. Defective restorations on each volunteer were assigned into one of three groups: A. sealed with nanoparticle FR (Filtek Flow Z350XT, 3M ESPE) and adhesive system (AS) (Single Bond Universal, 3M ESPE) (n = 35); B. sealed with fissure sealant (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE) and AS (n = 35) and C. no treatment (n= 35). The treatments were performed under absolute isolation, applying split etch technique, washed off and dried. Two blind calibrated evaluators (kappa=0.65) examined by visual and tactile inspection at baseline and 24 months later. Clinical evaluation was performed with two explorers: 150EX (Ø 0.15mm, Deppeler) and 250EX (Ø 0.25mm, Deppeler). Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney Test were performed.
Results: At the 24-month evaluation, 26 subjects were inspected, 73,3% (78 [SDI1] restorations). FDI results for Marginal Adaptation, Group A, FDI 1= 5,13%; 2=19,23%; 3 =7,69%; 4=7,69%. Group B: FDI 1 = 12,82%; 2= 8,97%; 3= 5,13%; 4= 6,41%. Group C: FDI C 1= 10,26%; 2= 7,69%; 3= 7,69%; 4=7,69%. (p=0.00), FDI results for Caries, Group A: 1= 32,05%; 2= 1,28%. Group B: 1= 33.33%. Group C= 1=32,05%; 4= 1,28%. (p=0.31).
Conclusions: Sealing composite restorations with FR and adhesive shows better clinical marginal adaptation than sealing with CS and adhesive after 24 months. Two secondary caries were found, in control and FR group. However there were no significant differences.
Methods: Prospective, controlled, randomized study where 35 patients with 105 restorations were examine. Inclusion criteria: High risk patient with at least two posterior teeth restorations with marginal adaptation 3 or 4 according with the FDI criteria. Exclusion criteria: contraindication for dental treatment. Defective restorations on each volunteer were assigned into one of three groups: A. sealed with nanoparticle FR (Filtek Flow Z350XT, 3M ESPE) and adhesive system (AS) (Single Bond Universal, 3M ESPE) (n = 35); B. sealed with fissure sealant (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE) and AS (n = 35) and C. no treatment (n= 35). The treatments were performed under absolute isolation, applying split etch technique, washed off and dried. Two blind calibrated evaluators (kappa=0.65) examined by visual and tactile inspection at baseline and 24 months later. Clinical evaluation was performed with two explorers: 150EX (Ø 0.15mm, Deppeler) and 250EX (Ø 0.25mm, Deppeler). Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney Test were performed.
Results: At the 24-month evaluation, 26 subjects were inspected, 73,3% (78 [SDI1] restorations). FDI results for Marginal Adaptation, Group A, FDI 1= 5,13%; 2=19,23%; 3 =7,69%; 4=7,69%. Group B: FDI 1 = 12,82%; 2= 8,97%; 3= 5,13%; 4= 6,41%. Group C: FDI C 1= 10,26%; 2= 7,69%; 3= 7,69%; 4=7,69%. (p=0.00), FDI results for Caries, Group A: 1= 32,05%; 2= 1,28%. Group B: 1= 33.33%. Group C= 1=32,05%; 4= 1,28%. (p=0.31).
Conclusions: Sealing composite restorations with FR and adhesive shows better clinical marginal adaptation than sealing with CS and adhesive after 24 months. Two secondary caries were found, in control and FR group. However there were no significant differences.