Clinical Evaluation of Noncarious Cervical Lesions of Different Extensions Restored With Bulk-fill or Conventional Resin Composite: Preliminary Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E11-E20
Author(s):  
AMO Correia ◽  
ALB Jurema ◽  
MR Andrade ◽  
ALS Borges ◽  
E Bresciani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY Purpose: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the influence of the occlusogingival distance (OGD) of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill resin composite and a regular nanofilled resin composite. Methods and Materials: A total of 140 restorations were randomly placed in 77 participants by one operator. NCCLs were divided into four groups (n=35) according to OGD (1.5 mm±10% or 3 mm±10%) and resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior [B] or Filtek Z350 XT [C]) used: 1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, 3 mm-B, and 3 mm-C. A two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) was applied following manufacturer instructions in all restorative procedures. Restorations were polished 1 week after placement. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (7 days), 6 months, and 1 year by two calibrated examiners, according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria evaluating fractures/retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, recurrence of caries, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for intergroup comparison in each follow-up; the Friedman analysis of variance, followed by the least significant difference test (multiple comparisons) was used for intragroup comparison between baseline and follow-up times (α=0.05). Results: Two restorations were lost at 12 months (1 for 1.5 mm-B and 1 for 3 mm-B). The retention rates at 12 months were 100% for 1.5 mm-C, 97% for 1.5 mm-B, 100% for 3 mm-C; and 97% for 3 mm-B, with no statistical difference among the groups (p=0.570). At 12 months, a statistically significant difference was found among the follow-up times for the same group (1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, and 3 mm-B) regarding the marginal staining criterion; moreover, the 3 mm-C group showed a significant difference from 6 months. No significant difference was found for the other parameters. Conclusion: Both resin composites showed acceptable clinical performance, and the OGD of NCCLs did not influence the clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 12 months.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 695 ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanda Mihaela Popescu ◽  
Mihaela Jana Ţuculină ◽  
Horia Octavian Manolea ◽  
Veronica Mercuţ ◽  
Monica Scrieciu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.

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.

Three-year Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial of Class II Restorations Using Flowable Bulk-fill Resin Composites

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
MD Moda ◽  
AF Briso ◽  
IAE Hoshino ◽  
SMB Frascino ◽  
PH Santos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Oral Care ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Surface Staining ◽  
Equality Test ◽  
Over Time

SUMMARY Objectives: This randomized, prospective, and split-mouth study aimed to evaluate flowable bulk-fill resin composites in class II restorations and to compare with a conventional layering technique after a 3-year follow-up. Methods and Materials: Fifty-three subjects received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional microhybrid resin composite (PA, Peak Universal + Amelogen Plus, Ultradent), flowable bulk-fill and nanoparticulate resin composites (ABF, Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Bulk Fill Flow + Filtek Z350XT, 3M Oral Care), and flowable bulk-fill and microhybrid resin composites (XST, XP Bond + SDR + TPH3, Dentsply). The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using the equality test of two proportions, Logistic regression analysis, Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests (α=0.05). Results: Forty-seven patients were evaluated at 3 years. XST bulk-fill restorative system presented higher marginal discoloration than PA, and the opposite occurred for surface staining. All restorative systems resulted in decreased interproximal contacts, occurring early for XST. Conclusions: Although the restorative system using incremental technique presented better performance for marginal discoloration, one of the restorative systems that used flowable bulk-fill resin composite (XST) showed the lowest surface staining. All restorative systems had decreased proximal contact over time.

scholarly journals Six month follow-up of two Bulk-fill composites in non-carious cervical lesions: Double blind randomized clinical trial.

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 210-219
Author(s):  
Patricio Vildósola ◽  
◽  
Jorge Nakouzi ◽  
Sara Rodriguez ◽  
Alexandra Reyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Double Blind

scholarly journals O12 OPEN PREPERITONEAL INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR, TREPP VERSUS TIPP IN A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Bökkerink ◽  
Giel Koning ◽  
Patrick Vriens ◽  
Roland Mollen ◽  
Willem Akkersdijk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Related Quality

Abstract Aim The preperitoneal mesh position for inguinal hernia repair showed beneficial results regarding Chronic Postoperative Inguinal Pain (CPIP) with low recurrence rates. Two open preperitoneal techniques, the TransREctus Sheath PrePeritoneal (TREPP) and the TransInguinal PrePeritoneal (TIPP) technique, were compared in a randomized clinical trial with the hypothesis of less patients with CPIP after TREPP due to complete avoidance of nerve contact. Materials and Methods Adult patients with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia were randomized to either TREPP or TIPP in four hospitals. Prior to the trial’s start the study protocol was ethically approved and published. Outcomes included CPIP after 1 year (primary outcome) and recurrence rates, adverse events and Health related Quality of Life (secondary outcomes). Follow-up was performed at 2 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. Pain was less often present after TREPP at 2 weeks and 6 months, but the CPIP at rest at 1 year was comparable 1.9% after TREPP vs 1.4% after TIPP, p = 0.535). The overall recurrence rate was higher in the TREPP group, 8.9% vs 4.6%, p = 0.022). Corrected for a learning curve for TREPP, no significant difference could be assessed (TREPP 5.7% and TIPP 4.8%, p = 0.591). Conclusions both the TREPP and TIPP technique resulted in a low incidence of CPIP after 1 year follow-up. The TREPP method can be considered a solid method for inguinal hernia repair if expertise is present. The learning curve of the TREPP techniques needs further evaluation.

scholarly journals A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: Amalgam versus resin composite

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 016-022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hande Kemaloglu ◽  
Tijen Pamir ◽  
Huseyin Tezel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Public Health Service ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Vas Scores ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Posterior Restorations ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the performance and postoperative sensitivity of a posterior resin composite with that of bonded amalgam in 40 (n = 20) large sized cavities and to evaluate whether resin composite could be an alternative for bonded amalgam. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial. Twenty patients in need of at least two posterior restorations were recruited. Authors randomly assigned one half of the restorations to receive bonded amalgam and the other half to composite restorations. Forty bonded amalgams (n = 20) and composites (n = 20) were evaluated for their performance on modified-US Public Health Service criteria and postoperative sensitivity using visual analogue scale (VAS) for 36-months. Results: Success rate of this study was 100%. First clinical alterations were rated as Bravo after 1 year in marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and surface roughness for both amalgam and composite. At the 3rd year, overall “Bravo” rated restorations were 12 for bonded amalgam and 13 for resin composites. There were no significant differences among the VAS scores of composites and bonded amalgams for all periods (P > 0.05) except for the comparisons at the 3rd year evaluation (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, both resin composite and bonded amalgam were clinically acceptable. Postoperative sensitivity results tend to decrease more in composite restorations rather than amalgams. Therefore, it was concluded that posterior resin composite can be used even in large sized cavities.

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.

Two-year clinical evaluation of a proanthocyanidins-based primer in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 ◽  
pp. 103325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidiane Costa de Souza ◽  
Nara Sousa Rodrigues ◽  
Diana Araújo Cunha ◽  
Victor Pinheiro Feitosa ◽  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Double Blind

Clinical Evaluation of a Silorane- and a Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite in Class II Restorations: 24-Month Results

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. E102-E110 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Karaman ◽  
AR Yazici ◽  
G Ozgunaltay ◽  
I Ustunkol ◽  
A Berber
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objective: To compare the 24-month clinical performance of two different resin composites in class II slot restorations. Methods and Materials: Thirty-seven patients having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored with either a silorane-based composite (Filtek Silorane) and its self-etch adhesive (Silorane Adhesive System, 3M ESPE) or a methacrylate-based packable resin composite (X-tra Fil) and its self-etch adhesive (Futurabond NR, VOCO GmbH) according to the toss of a coin. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six-, 12-, and 24-month recalls by two calibrated examiners according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test. Within group differences of the materials at different recall times were compared using the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Bonferroni-adjusted McNemar test was used when significant difference was found (p&lt;0.05). Results: After 24 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the two restorative materials for the criteria evaluated. Conclusions: Both silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document