A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results
Journal of Applied Oral Science
\J. Appl. Oral Sci. vol.27 Bauru 2019 Epub Oct 07, 2019http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678
Original Article
A randomized, prospective clinical study
evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional
composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities:
one-year results
Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving.
Objectives:
The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical
performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a
bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II
restorations.
Methodology:
In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients
using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite
(CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil
(EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with
composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using
modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal
discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation,
secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The
data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.
Results:
At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes
were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there
were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no
statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical
performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However,
there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC
groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary
caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0 .05="" p="">
Comments