Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial
Good to know that curing rates of composite do not change outcomes. MJ
Volume 41, Issue 5, May 2013, Pages 436–442
Abstract
Objectives
This
randomised, split-mouth clinical study evaluated the marginal quality
of direct Class I and Class II restorations made of microhybrid
composite and applied using two polymerisation protocols, using two
margin evaluation criteria.
Methods
A
total of 50 patients (mean age: 33 years) received 100 direct Class I
or Class II restorations in premolars or molars. Three calibrated
operators made the restorations. After conditioning the tooth with
2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, restorations were made incrementally
using microhybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram). Each layer was
polymerised using a polymerisation device operated either at regular
mode (600–650 mW/cm2 for 20 s) (RM) or high-power (1200–1300 mW/cm2
for 10 s) mode (HPM). Two independent calibrated operators evaluated
the restorations 1 week after restoration placement (baseline), at 6
months and thereafter annually up to 5 years using modified USPHS and
SQUACE criteria. Data were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U-test (α = 0.05).
Results
Alfa
scores (USPHS) for marginal adaptation (86% and 88% for RM and HPM,
respectively) and marginal discoloration (88% and 88%, for RM and HPM,
respectively) did not show significant differences between the
two-polymerisation protocols (p > 0.05). Alfa scores
(SQUACE) for marginal adaptation (88% and 88% for RM and HPM,
respectively) and marginal discoloration (94% and 94%, for RM and HPM,
respectively) were also not significantly different at 5th year (p >0.05).
Conclusion
Regular
and high-power polymerisation protocols had no influence on the
marginal quality of the microhybrid composite tested up to 5 years. Both
modified USPHS and SQUACE criteria confirmed that regardless of the
polymerisation mode, marginal quality of the restorations deteriorated
compared to baseline.
Comments