Abstract
Objective
The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of direct resin composite restorations placed with different techniques (incremental or bulk) and different flowable linings (conventional or bulk-fill) in endodontically treated teeth.
Materials and methods
Forty-seven pair 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 2 mm 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 2-mm 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.
Results
At 3-year recall, 33 restorations with Aelite Flo lining and 33 with x-tra base lining were available. Two restorations from each group (6.0 %) were scored as Bravo in terms of surface texture. One restoration's color match from x-tra base group scored as Bravo (3.0 %). All other evaluated criteria were scored as Alfa (100 %) for all restorations. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in all evaluated criteria during 3-year period (p > 0.05).
Conclusion
Bulk-filling technique showed clinically acceptable performance comparable to the incremental technique.
Clinical relevance
Restorations placed with bulk-filling technique with x-tra base lining and incremental technique with a conventional flowable lining showed highly clinical performance over 3-year period.
http://ift.tt/2m1l24F
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου