scholarly journals A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Perdigão ◽  
C Kose ◽  
AP Mena-Serrano ◽  
EA De Paula ◽  
LY Tay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Usphs Criteria

SUMMARY Purpose To evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of a multimode adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, SU, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Materials and Methods Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm, etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd, etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set, selective enamel etching; and SE, self-etch. The composite resin, Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE), was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and at 18 months, using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05). Results Five restorations (SE: 3; Set: 1; and ERm: 1) were lost after 18 months (p>0.05 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in four and 10% of the restorations evaluated (p>0.05), respectively, for USPHS and FDI criteria. Nine restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS criteria and 38%, 40%, 36%, and 44% for groups ERm, ERd, Set, and SE, respectively, when the FDI criteria were applied (p>0.05). However, when semiquantitative scores (or SQUACE) for marginal adaptation were used, SE resulted in a significantly greater number of restorations, with more than 30% of the total length of the interface showing marginal discrepancy (28%) in comparison with the other groups (8%, 6%, and 8%, respectively, for ERm, ERd, and Set). Conclusions The clinical retention of the multimode adhesive at 18 months does not depend on the bonding strategy. The only differences between strategies were found for the parameter marginal adaptation, for which the FDI criteria were more sensitive than the USPHS criteria.

Five-year Randomized Clinical Trial on the Performance of Two Etch-and-rinse Adhesives in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
TP Matos ◽  
TA Hanzen ◽  
R Almeida ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
MC Bandeca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Dihydrogen Phosphate ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Repeated Measures Anova ◽  
Etch And Rinse

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL). Methods and Materials: The sample comprised 35 adults with at least two similar-sized NCCL. Seventy restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) and Ambar (AM). The restorations were placed incrementally using a resin composite (Opallis). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months and 5 years using some items of the FDI criteria. The differences in the ratings of the two materials after 6 months, 18 months, and 5 years were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05). Results: Five patients did not attend the 60-month recall. No significant differences were observed between the materials for any criteria evaluated. Twenty-one restorations failed (12 for SB and 9 for AM) after 60 months. Thus, the retention rate for SB at 60 months were 55.6% for SB and 71% for AM (p=0.32). After 60 months, 12 restorations (6 for SB and 6 AM) showed some loss of marginal adaptation (p=1.0). Slight marginal discoloration was observed in 10 restorations (6 for SB and 4 AM; p=0.91). Five restorations (2 for SB and 3 for AM) showed recurrences of caries (p=1.0). Conclusions: Both two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives—Adper Single Bond 2, a polyalkenoic acid-containing adhesive, and Ambar, a 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-containing adhesive—showed acceptable clinical performance after 60 months.

A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. E255-E270
Author(s):  
E Gomes de Albuquerque ◽  
F Warol ◽  
F Signorelli Calazans ◽  
L Augusto Poubel ◽  
S Soares Marins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p>0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p>0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p>0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.

Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Baracco ◽  
J Perdigão ◽  
E Cabrera ◽  
I Giráldez ◽  
L Ceballos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Statistical Change ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the one-year clinical performance of three restorative systems, which included a novel low-shrinkage composite and two bonding strategies. Materials and Methods Twenty-five patients received three Class I (occlusal) or Class II restorations performed with one of three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System (FS); Adper Scotchbond 1 XT, a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (XT); and Adper Scotchbond SE, a two-step self-etch adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (SE). All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent observers evaluated the restorations at baseline, after six months, and after one year, according to the United States Public Health System modified criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test were computed to compare the behavior of the restorative systems; Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze the intrasystem data (α=0.05). Results All restorations were evaluated at one year. FS and XT performed statistically similarly at one year, but marginal staining for SE was statistically worse. Intrasystem comparisons between baseline and one year also showed deterioration of marginal staining for SE, while a deterioration of the marginal adaptation was recorded for both SE and FS. XT was the only system for which there was no statistical change of the parameters measured in this study. Conclusions Both restorative systems using self-etch adhesives showed a tendency to degradation of marginal adaptation after one year of clinical use, compared to baseline values. Although the clinical performance of FS was deemed acceptable after one year, this study did not find any advantage of the silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite. The low-shrinkage associated with FS may not be a determinant factor for clinical success.

scholarly journals 6-month clinical performance of a universal adhesive on non-carious cervical lesions: self-etch and etch-and-rinse techniques

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joana Cruz ◽  
◽  
Ana Silva ◽  
Raquel Eira ◽  
Catarina Coito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Estimating Equation ◽  
The Self ◽  
Generalized Estimating Equation ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 6-month clinical performance of Adhese Universal applied with two different application strategies (self-etch vs. etch-andrinse technique) when restoring non-carious cervical lesions. Methods: Twenty-six patients participated in this study. Restorations of 117 non-carious cervical lesions were assigned to 2 groups: 1) Adhese Universal in the etch-and-rinse mode (n=59) and 2) Adhese Universal in the self-etch mode (n=58). The same resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram) was used for all restorations. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6 months, using the World Dental Federation criteria. The results were analyzed statistically by the McNemar test (α=0.05 and power of 80%) to compare the differences between baseline and 6 months and a generalized estimating equation to compare the differences between the 2 techniques. Results: No differences were found in restoration performance between the baseline and the end of the 6-month period in the self-etch mode (marginal coloring: p=0.1366; fractures/retention: p=1.000; marginal adaptation: p=1.000; hypersensitivity: p=0.4795; recurrence of caries: p=1.000). On the other hand, in the etch-and-rinse mode, for both fractures/retention (p=0.0028) and marginal adaptation (p=0.0016), significant differences were found. Significant differences were also detected between groups at 6 months for fractures/retention and marginal adaptation (p<0.01). Nine restorations were lost at 6 months in the etch-and-rinse group. Conclusions: The tested universal adhesive obtained better results in the self-etch technique than in the etch-and-rinse technique, both on fractures/retention and marginal adaptation.

scholarly journals Six-month Follow-up of Cervical Composite Restorations Placed With a New Universal Adhesive System: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 465-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
LS Lopes ◽  
FS Calazans ◽  
R Hidalgo ◽  
LL Buitrago ◽  
F Gutierrez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Purpose: The objective of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the six-month clinical performance of a new universal adhesive (Xeno Select, Dentsply) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria: World Dental Federation (FDI) and the US Public Health Service (USPHS). Methods and Materials: A total of 124 restorations were randomly placed in 31 patients according to the following groups: ER-D = etch-and-rinse/dry dentin; ER-M = etch-and-rinse/moist dentin; SE-et = selective enamel etching; and SET = self-etch. The composite resin EVOLUX (Dentsply) was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated after one week (baseline) and at six months using the FDI and USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate tests (α=0.05). Results: Fifteen restorations were lost or fractured at six months (one for ER-D, three for ER-M, five for SE-et, and six for SET) (p&gt;0.05 at six-month recall). When ER (ER-D and ER-M) was compared with SE (SE-et and SET) there was a significant difference in the retention rate after six months (p=0.001). Marginal staining and postoperative sensitivity to air were only observed in three (one for ER-M and two for SET) and two restorations (two for ER-D) in both evaluation criteria (p&gt;0.05), respectively. Forty-seven restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the six-month recall using the FDI criteria (13 for ER-D, 10 for ER-M, 11 for SE-et, and 13 for SET; p&gt;0.05 between groups). However, for all groups, a significant difference was detected when baseline and six-month data were compared (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: The six-month clinical behavior of Xeno Select Universal Adhesive depends on the bonding strategy used. The universal adhesive did not fulfill the American Dental Association criteria for full approval when used in the self-etch mode.

scholarly journals One-Year Evaluation of a Simplified Ethanol-Wet Bonding Technique: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce Figueira de Araujo ◽  
Thais Andrade de Figueiredo Barros ◽  
Esther Marina Franca Braga ◽  
Sandro Cordeiro Loretto ◽  
Patricia de Almeida Rodrigues Silva e Souza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Bonding Technique

The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations using a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (TSER), a one-step self-etching adhesive (OSSE), and a simplified ethanol-wet bonding technique (EWBT) prior to the application of a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions. Ninety-three restorations (31 for each group) were placed in 17 patients by a single operator. No cavity preparation was performed. After 6 and 12 months, the restorations were assessed by two previously trained examiners using modified Ryge criteria for retention (kappa=1.00) and marginal adaptation/staining (kappa=0.81), and the results were analyzed by Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively. No significant differences were observed among groups at the 6- and 12-month time points for any of the assessed criteria (p≥0.05). The intra-group analysis performed by Cochran's test (for retention) and Wilcoxon test (for marginal adaptation/staining) revealed significant differences between the baseline/12-month time intervals in marginal adaptation in OSSE (p=0.0180) and in marginal staining in TSER (p=0.0117). The survival analysis for retention criteria performed using a log-rank test did not show significant differences (p>0.05). The restorations placed using the simplified EWBT performed equally well as the other adhesive strategies employed.

Clinical Evaluation of Lithium Disilicate Veneers Manufactured by CAD/CAM Compared with Heat-pressed Methods: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-14
Author(s):  
IBL Soares-Rusu ◽  
CA Villavicencio-Espinoza ◽  
NA de Oliveira ◽  
L Wang ◽  
HM Honório ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Fabrication Technique ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
Cad Cam

Clinical Relevance Lithium disilicate veneers for esthetic restorations show great accuracy and similarity, regardless of the type of fabrication technique. SUMMARY Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of two different ceramic veneer methods: CAD/CAM (IPS e.max CAD) and heat-press (IPS e.max Press) at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, and the level of patient satisfaction after treatment. Methods and Materials: Patients were selected according to eligibility criteria, with a minimum of two and a maximum of six veneers per patient, for a total of 178 veneers randomized in two groups. A split-mouth, longitudinal, interventional, double-blind and single-center study was carried out according to the fabrication technique. Scores were attributed to the veneers according to the criteria of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) regarding marginal adaptation, color change, marginal discoloration, restoration fracture, tooth fracture, restoration wear, antagonist tooth wear, presence of caries, and postoperative sensitivity. All patients answered a satisfaction questionnaire using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Statistical significance was determined using two-way ANOVA and Tukey test, with a significance level of 5%. Results: The marginal adaptation criterion showed statistical difference between periods (p=0.017), regardless of the processing method (baseline means: CAD=1.056, PRESS=1.067, 6- to 12-month follow-up: CAD=1.089, PRESS=1.078). The other evaluated criteria showed no statistical differences between baseline and after 6 to 12 months. The level of satisfaction assessed by the VAS before and after treatment was 7.06 and 9.5, respectively. Conclusions: The two methods presented similar clinical performance after 12 months, and the patient’s level of satisfaction was considered high.

scholarly journals Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin – a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreia Assis Carvalho ◽  
Murillo Martins Leite ◽  
Jessica Karla Maia Zago ◽  
Carla Aparecida Bernardes Costa Men Nunes ◽  
Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class I ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Behavior ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Application Protocols

Abstract Background Multimode adhesives incorporate the versatility of adapting to various clinical situations by its capacity to be used in different protocols. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical behavior of composite resin direct restorations (Class I and II) performed with different universal dentin adhesive application protocols comparing adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria. Methods The current study is a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, and convenience sample controlled clinical trial. The participants (age ≥ 18 years) had restorative need of Class I and/or II due to the presence of carious lesions and/or unsatisfactory restorations in at least three dental elements. Each participant received three application protocols for Scotchbond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE), one in each tooth to be restored: ER = etch-and-rinse + adhesive (n = 50); SEE = selective enamel etch + adhesive (n = 50) and SE = self-etch adhesive (n = 50). All teeth were restored in a similar way using Filtek™ Supreme composite resin (3M ESPE). Restorations were evaluated using the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, at baseline after 7 to 21 (12.02 ± 5.68) days (T1; n = 50 per group) and after 12 to 20 (15.8 ± 2.7) months (T2; n = 46 per group) by two previously calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.80). The statistical tests were performed between groups (Friedman), intragroup (Wilcoxon), and between the criteria considering acceptable and not acceptable restorations (McNemar), α = 0.05. Results A statistically significant difference was observed only for the property “superficial staining”, between groups at T2 (p = 0.01) for ER (n = 13 with score 2 or more) and SEE (n = 3 with score 2 or more) and intragroup for ER (T1, n = 1 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 13 with score 2 or more, p = 0.001) and SE (T1, n = 0 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 8 with score 2 or more p = 0.007). For the other comparisons between groups, intragroup, and between the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, there were no statistically significant differences (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions It can be concluded that the different application protocols of the universal adhesive resulted in clinically “acceptable” restorations after 15.8 ± 2.7 months of follow-up. Adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria provided similar results to each other. Trial registration. Number in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR-9p3hdp. Registered 24 May 2015.

Catechin-based Dentin Pretreatment and the Clinical Performance of a Universal Adhesive: A Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 473-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAGA Costa ◽  
NLG Albuquerque ◽  
JS Mendonça ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
VPA Saboia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance At 24 months, the dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate did not impair the clinical performance of the adhesive Single Bond Universal regardless of the bonding strategy used. SUMMARY Purpose: To evaluate the two-year effect of dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) on the clinical performance of restorations of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with Single Bond Universal, applied in two different modes (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). Methods and Materials: In this randomized clinical trial, 33 volunteers were selected, and 156 NCCLs were assigned to four groups: ER, etch-and-rinse; ER-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; and SE-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + self-etch. The NCCLs were restored with a nanofilled resin composite and evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using FDI criteria for retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Two evaluators were blinded to the treatments performed, and impressions were taken for resin replicas to allow indirect observations. Statistical analyses were performed with Kruskal-Wallis and McNemar tests with a significance level of 5%. Results: Six restorations (one from ER, two from SE, one from ER-EGCG, and two from SEEGCG) were lost at 24 months with no significant differences (p&gt;0.05). The retention rates were 97.0% (ER and ER-EGCG), 94.1% (SE), and 94.2% (SE-EGCG). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was detected between the baseline and 24 months for the SE group (p=0.0313). There were no statistical differences among all other evaluated criteria at 24 months, neither for each group at baseline nor for 24-month comparisons (p&gt;0.05). Conclusions: The pretreatment with EGCG provided no benefit in the clinical performance of the adhesive regardless of the bonding strategy used. In addition, it adds an additional required step to the restorative procedure.

24-Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins in Class II Restorations

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-133
Author(s):  
T Guney ◽  
AR Yazici
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Posterior Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Molar Teeth

SUMMARY The objective of this study was to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of three different bulk-fill restorative resin materials in class II restorations. Forty patients with at least three approximal lesions in premolar and molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 120 class II cavities were restored using Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (n=40), SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono (n=40), and everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior (n=40) with their respective adhesives according to the manufacturers' instructions. All restorations were placed by one operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using modified US Public Health Service criteria by one examiner. The restoration groups for each category were compared using the Pearson chi-square test, while the Cochran Q-test was used to compare the changes across different time points within each restorative material (p&lt;0.05). At the end of 24 months, 94 restorations were evaluated in 33 patients, with a recall rate of 82.5%. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of retention (p&gt;0.05). At the 24-month recall, two restorations from the SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono group and four from the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group showed slight marginal discoloration and were rated as bravo. No marginal discoloration was observed in any of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill restorations. Six restorations from the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill group, six from the SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono group, and 12 from the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group received bravo scores in terms of marginal adaptation. No difference was found among the three groups for any of the evaluation criteria tested (p&gt;0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the baseline and 24-month recall in the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group in terms of marginal discoloration (p&lt;0.05). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was observed between baseline and 24 months for all the restorative resins (p&lt;0.05). All the restorative resins tested performed similarly and showed acceptable clinical performance during the 24-month evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document