Three-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Posterior Composite Restorations Placed With Different Techniques and Flowable Composite Linings in Endodontically Treated Teeth
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Dental Caries
- Sponsor
- Ondokuz Mayıs University
- Enrollment
- 37
- Primary Endpoint
- Clinical performance evaluation of different composite resin restorations with USPHS criteria
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 9 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of direct resin composite restorations placed with different placement techniques (incremental or bulk) and with different flowable linings (conventional or bulk-fill flowable) used in open-sandwich technique, in endodontically treated Class II cavities (mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal), in a randomized controlled comparison.
Detailed Description
Forty-seven pairs Class II (mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal) composite restorations were placed in 37 patients. In all cavities, Adper Single Bond 2 was used. In one of the cavities of each pair, a conventional flowable composite, Aelite Flo, was applied in approximately 2mm thick, and the remaining cavity was restored incrementally with GrandioSO. In the second cavity, a bulk-fill flowable composite, x-tra base, was applied in approximately 4 mm thick in bulk increments and the remaining 2mm occlusal part of the cavity was restored with GrandioSO. All cavities were restored with open-sandwich technique by the same operator. At baseline and after 6-month, 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-up visits, restorations were evaluated by Modified USPHS criteria.
Investigators
Dr Emel Karaman
Assistant professor
Ondokuz Mayıs University
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •Permanent premolars and molars without any restorations were included in the study. Every tooth included in the study had neighboring teeth and were in occlusion to antagonistic teeth.
Exclusion Criteria
- •Patients were excluded who needed indirect restorations due to significant loss of tooth structure, known allergies to product ingredients, had poor oral hygiene and a history of bruxism.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Clinical performance evaluation of different composite resin restorations with USPHS criteria
Time Frame: three years
Every year in three years period