Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Self-adhering flowable composite (SAFC) minimized the time-consuming application procedures encountered with the traditional adhesive systems and restorative materials. Self-adhering composite combines the merits of both adhesive and restorative material technologies (8(th) generation) i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shaalan, Omar Osama, Abou-Auf, Eman, El Zoghby, Amira Farid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6161520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30294107
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_210_18
_version_ 1783359005534453760
author Shaalan, Omar Osama
Abou-Auf, Eman
El Zoghby, Amira Farid
author_facet Shaalan, Omar Osama
Abou-Auf, Eman
El Zoghby, Amira Farid
author_sort Shaalan, Omar Osama
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Self-adhering flowable composite (SAFC) minimized the time-consuming application procedures encountered with the traditional adhesive systems and restorative materials. Self-adhering composite combines the merits of both adhesive and restorative material technologies (8(th) generation) in a single product, bringing new horizons, and ambitions to restorative procedures. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of SAFC compared to conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a split-mouth design, after cavity preparation, 18 patients with conservative Class I cavities received randomly two pairs of restorations, either Vertise™ flow or Filtek™ Z350 XT Flowable combined with Scotchbond™ Universal Etchant and Single Bond Universal, all materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months by two calibrated assessors using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria measuring (retention, postoperative hypersensitivity, color match, marginal adaptation, and marginal discoloration). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Chi-square test was used to compare between flowable composite materials after different follow-up periods, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to explore changes over follow-up periods. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: At baseline and 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference between both materials for all tested outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SAFC has shown clinical performance similar to conventional flowable composite after 6 months of clinical service.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6161520
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61615202018-10-05 Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial Shaalan, Omar Osama Abou-Auf, Eman El Zoghby, Amira Farid J Conserv Dent Original Article BACKGROUND: Self-adhering flowable composite (SAFC) minimized the time-consuming application procedures encountered with the traditional adhesive systems and restorative materials. Self-adhering composite combines the merits of both adhesive and restorative material technologies (8(th) generation) in a single product, bringing new horizons, and ambitions to restorative procedures. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of SAFC compared to conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a split-mouth design, after cavity preparation, 18 patients with conservative Class I cavities received randomly two pairs of restorations, either Vertise™ flow or Filtek™ Z350 XT Flowable combined with Scotchbond™ Universal Etchant and Single Bond Universal, all materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months by two calibrated assessors using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria measuring (retention, postoperative hypersensitivity, color match, marginal adaptation, and marginal discoloration). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Chi-square test was used to compare between flowable composite materials after different follow-up periods, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to explore changes over follow-up periods. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: At baseline and 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference between both materials for all tested outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SAFC has shown clinical performance similar to conventional flowable composite after 6 months of clinical service. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6161520/ /pubmed/30294107 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_210_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Shaalan, Omar Osama
Abou-Auf, Eman
El Zoghby, Amira Farid
Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial
title Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial
title_full Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial
title_short Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial
title_sort clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative class i cavities: randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6161520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30294107
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_210_18
work_keys_str_mv AT shaalanomarosama clinicalevaluationofselfadheringflowablecompositeversusconventionalflowablecompositeinconservativeclassicavitiesrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT abouaufeman clinicalevaluationofselfadheringflowablecompositeversusconventionalflowablecompositeinconservativeclassicavitiesrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT elzoghbyamirafarid clinicalevaluationofselfadheringflowablecompositeversusconventionalflowablecompositeinconservativeclassicavitiesrandomizedcontrolledtrial