Cargando…

Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluations as fundamental method to prove the efficiency of restorative materials. AIM: This study evaluated the clinical performance of restorative systems during 2 years of clinical service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study assessed the clinical performance of restorative sy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gianordoli-Neto, Ranulfo, Padovani, Gislaine Cristina, Mondelli, José, de Lima Navarro, Maria Fidela, Mendonça, Juliano Sartori, Santiago, Sérgio Lima
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4979274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563176
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.186446
_version_ 1782447294848696320
author Gianordoli-Neto, Ranulfo
Padovani, Gislaine Cristina
Mondelli, José
de Lima Navarro, Maria Fidela
Mendonça, Juliano Sartori
Santiago, Sérgio Lima
author_facet Gianordoli-Neto, Ranulfo
Padovani, Gislaine Cristina
Mondelli, José
de Lima Navarro, Maria Fidela
Mendonça, Juliano Sartori
Santiago, Sérgio Lima
author_sort Gianordoli-Neto, Ranulfo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluations as fundamental method to prove the efficiency of restorative materials. AIM: This study evaluated the clinical performance of restorative systems during 2 years of clinical service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study assessed the clinical performance of restorative systems (Filtek Z250 and P60), during 2 years of clinical service, using the US Public Health Service system. The randomized and double-blind study comprising thirty volunteers. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. It was used the following criteria: marginal discoloration (MD), marginal integrity (MI), superficial texture (ST), wear (W), postoperative sensitivity (PS) and recurrent caries (RC). RESULTS: Statistic analysis was performed using Fisher's and McNemar's exact tests and Pearsons's Chi-square in a significance level of 5%. The results at baseline and 24 months for Group I were: MD – 100, 100%; MI – 100, 88.6%; ST – 100, 94.3%; W – 100, 94.3%; PS – 100, 100%; RC – 100, 100%, of alpha scores; Group II: MD – 100, 97.1%; MI – 100, 91.4%; ST – 100, 94.3%; W – 100, 91.4%; PS – 100, 100%; RC – 100, 100%, of alpha scores. It was observed no statistical difference in the evaluated criteria and period. CONCLUSIONS: After 24 months of evaluation, both restorative systems exhibited acceptable clinical performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4979274
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49792742016-08-25 Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study Gianordoli-Neto, Ranulfo Padovani, Gislaine Cristina Mondelli, José de Lima Navarro, Maria Fidela Mendonça, Juliano Sartori Santiago, Sérgio Lima J Conserv Dent Original Article BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluations as fundamental method to prove the efficiency of restorative materials. AIM: This study evaluated the clinical performance of restorative systems during 2 years of clinical service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study assessed the clinical performance of restorative systems (Filtek Z250 and P60), during 2 years of clinical service, using the US Public Health Service system. The randomized and double-blind study comprising thirty volunteers. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. It was used the following criteria: marginal discoloration (MD), marginal integrity (MI), superficial texture (ST), wear (W), postoperative sensitivity (PS) and recurrent caries (RC). RESULTS: Statistic analysis was performed using Fisher's and McNemar's exact tests and Pearsons's Chi-square in a significance level of 5%. The results at baseline and 24 months for Group I were: MD – 100, 100%; MI – 100, 88.6%; ST – 100, 94.3%; W – 100, 94.3%; PS – 100, 100%; RC – 100, 100%, of alpha scores; Group II: MD – 100, 97.1%; MI – 100, 91.4%; ST – 100, 94.3%; W – 100, 91.4%; PS – 100, 100%; RC – 100, 100%, of alpha scores. It was observed no statistical difference in the evaluated criteria and period. CONCLUSIONS: After 24 months of evaluation, both restorative systems exhibited acceptable clinical performance. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4979274/ /pubmed/27563176 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.186446 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gianordoli-Neto, Ranulfo
Padovani, Gislaine Cristina
Mondelli, José
de Lima Navarro, Maria Fidela
Mendonça, Juliano Sartori
Santiago, Sérgio Lima
Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study
title Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study
title_full Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study
title_fullStr Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study
title_full_unstemmed Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study
title_short Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study
title_sort two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: a randomized controlled study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4979274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563176
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.186446
work_keys_str_mv AT gianordolinetoranulfo twoyearclinicalevaluationofresincompositeinposteriorteetharandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT padovanigislainecristina twoyearclinicalevaluationofresincompositeinposteriorteetharandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT mondellijose twoyearclinicalevaluationofresincompositeinposteriorteetharandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT delimanavarromariafidela twoyearclinicalevaluationofresincompositeinposteriorteetharandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT mendoncajulianosartori twoyearclinicalevaluationofresincompositeinposteriorteetharandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT santiagosergiolima twoyearclinicalevaluationofresincompositeinposteriorteetharandomizedcontrolledstudy