IADR Abstract Archives
3 Months follow-up Clinical Performance Dual-Cure Bulk-Fill Composite.
Objectives: Evaluate clinical performance in proximal or occlusal restorations with dual-cure Bulk- Fill and compare to nanofilled composite by Ryge criteria.
Methods: 47 voluntary patients with 2 proximal or occlusal caries lesions in posterior teeth with proximal and antagnist teeth. The depths of the lesions were ≥ 3.5mm.. Were distributed randomly: Group FU: 47 Fill-Up resins Bulk-fill-Brilliant Everglow (Coltene) and Group Z350: 47 restorations Filtek Z350 (3M-Espe). The restorative procedure was performed with absolute isolation. The proximal preparations was used sectional matrix system and wooden wedge. Preparations were conditioned in enamel for 20 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid. Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M-Espe) was applied for Z350 and One Coat 7 Universal in the cavities of the FU (Coltene) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The FU restorations were done with an only layer (≥3mm) and a final layer with Brilliant Everglow. Z350 were restored with 2 mm 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) from the baseline to 3 months. The Wilcoxon test was used for the statistical analysis. (95 % of significance).
Results: 3 months for follow-up were evaluated 47 patients (N total=94). Score alpha for AM was 100% Z350 and 97,8 % for FU; MS, A,S and C there were 100% for both groups. There were not significant differences between the groups (p >0.05).
Conclusions: For 3 months follow up the two posterior restorations composites there were not significant differences in clinical performance evaluated by Ryge criteria.
Methods: 47 voluntary patients with 2 proximal or occlusal caries lesions in posterior teeth with proximal and antagnist teeth. The depths of the lesions were ≥ 3.5mm.. Were distributed randomly: Group FU: 47 Fill-Up resins Bulk-fill-Brilliant Everglow (Coltene) and Group Z350: 47 restorations Filtek Z350 (3M-Espe). The restorative procedure was performed with absolute isolation. The proximal preparations was used sectional matrix system and wooden wedge. Preparations were conditioned in enamel for 20 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid. Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M-Espe) was applied for Z350 and One Coat 7 Universal in the cavities of the FU (Coltene) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The FU restorations were done with an only layer (≥3mm) and a final layer with Brilliant Everglow. Z350 were restored with 2 mm 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) from the baseline to 3 months. The Wilcoxon test was used for the statistical analysis. (95 % of significance).
Results: 3 months for follow-up were evaluated 47 patients (N total=94). Score alpha for AM was 100% Z350 and 97,8 % for FU; MS, A,S and C there were 100% for both groups. There were not significant differences between the groups (p >0.05).
Conclusions: For 3 months follow up the two posterior restorations composites there were not significant differences in clinical performance evaluated by Ryge criteria.