IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Composite Resin Restoration Techniques
Objectives: To evaluate the clinical performance of direct thermoviscus composite (VisCalor bulk) and indirect CAD/CAM composite (Grandio O blocks)
Methods: Twenty patients (40 molar teeth) (n=20) of an age ranging between (20-45) were participated in this study. Class II cavity was prepared according to caries extension .Cavities were classifed to 2 groups. Group I (Grandio CAD/CAM), Full arch impressions was taken and sent to the laboratory for CAD/CAM composite inlays fabrication. During cementation, the fitting surfaces of the inlays was sandblasted and coated with silane coupling agent. Futurabond U self-etching dual-cure adhesive was applied to the tooth preparation and the inlays was cemented using Bifix QM luting material. Group II (VisCalor) Cavities prepared, Futurabond adhesive was applied. VisCalor bulk fill composite was placed and cured. Each restoration was clinically evaluated clinically at base line, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months using Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.Evaluation of marginal integrity using an inverse replica of the restored teeth was prepared to be examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Results: The results of the current study revealed 100% recall periods during 18 months clinical follow up period. The retention rate in all groups recorded a 100% retention rate.
Using Chi-Square test, there was no significant difference between the three tested groups after 12 months & 18 months follow up periods for marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and color matching, interproximal contact.
None of the tested restorations had secondary caries at any clinical evaluation period while post-operative sensitivity was found only in 5 % & 10% of cases restored with Grandio and VisCalor composite restorations (group I , II) at the base line and was disappeared completely during the next follow up period.
SEM examination of marginal seal revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups after 6 months&12 months & 18 months
Conclusions: Thermoviscous composite is easy to use with perfect results.
Indirect restorations solve problems of microleakage.
Indirect CAD/CAM composite has good clinical values.
The results are non-significant between indirect CAD\CAM composite and viscalor.
Methods: Twenty patients (40 molar teeth) (n=20) of an age ranging between (20-45) were participated in this study. Class II cavity was prepared according to caries extension .Cavities were classifed to 2 groups. Group I (Grandio CAD/CAM), Full arch impressions was taken and sent to the laboratory for CAD/CAM composite inlays fabrication. During cementation, the fitting surfaces of the inlays was sandblasted and coated with silane coupling agent. Futurabond U self-etching dual-cure adhesive was applied to the tooth preparation and the inlays was cemented using Bifix QM luting material. Group II (VisCalor) Cavities prepared, Futurabond adhesive was applied. VisCalor bulk fill composite was placed and cured. Each restoration was clinically evaluated clinically at base line, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months using Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.Evaluation of marginal integrity using an inverse replica of the restored teeth was prepared to be examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Results: The results of the current study revealed 100% recall periods during 18 months clinical follow up period. The retention rate in all groups recorded a 100% retention rate.
Using Chi-Square test, there was no significant difference between the three tested groups after 12 months & 18 months follow up periods for marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and color matching, interproximal contact.
None of the tested restorations had secondary caries at any clinical evaluation period while post-operative sensitivity was found only in 5 % & 10% of cases restored with Grandio and VisCalor composite restorations (group I , II) at the base line and was disappeared completely during the next follow up period.
SEM examination of marginal seal revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups after 6 months&12 months & 18 months
Conclusions: Thermoviscous composite is easy to use with perfect results.
Indirect restorations solve problems of microleakage.
Indirect CAD/CAM composite has good clinical values.
The results are non-significant between indirect CAD\CAM composite and viscalor.