Cargando…

One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study

OBJECTIVES: In the context of the phase-down of amalgam, development of easily applicable, permanent restorative materials is of high clinical interest. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel, tooth-colored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative (SABF, 3M Oral Care) and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cieplik, Fabian, Scholz, Konstantin J., Anthony, Julian C., Tabenski, Isabelle, Ettenberger, Sarah, Hiller, Karl-Anton, Buchalla, Wolfgang, Federlin, Marianne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8791912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34129074
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04019-y
_version_ 1784640290820194304
author Cieplik, Fabian
Scholz, Konstantin J.
Anthony, Julian C.
Tabenski, Isabelle
Ettenberger, Sarah
Hiller, Karl-Anton
Buchalla, Wolfgang
Federlin, Marianne
author_facet Cieplik, Fabian
Scholz, Konstantin J.
Anthony, Julian C.
Tabenski, Isabelle
Ettenberger, Sarah
Hiller, Karl-Anton
Buchalla, Wolfgang
Federlin, Marianne
author_sort Cieplik, Fabian
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: In the context of the phase-down of amalgam, development of easily applicable, permanent restorative materials is of high clinical interest. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel, tooth-colored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative (SABF, 3M Oral Care) and a conventional bulk-fill composite (Filtek One, 3M Oral Care; FOBF) for restoring class II cavities. The null-hypothesis tested was that both materials perform similar regarding clinical performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized split-mouth study, 30 patients received one SABF and one FOBF restoration each. Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) was used as adhesive for FOBF (self-etch mode), while SABF was applied directly without adhesive. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded examiners at baseline, 6 months and 12 months employing FDI criteria. Non-parametric statistical analyses and χ(2)-tests (α = 0.05) were applied. RESULTS: Thirty patients (60 restorations) were available for the 6- and 12-month recalls exhibiting 100% restoration survival. All restorations revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores at all time points and for all criteria. Only regarding esthetic properties, FOBF performed significantly better than SABF regarding surface lustre (A1) and color match and translucency (A3) at all time points and marginal staining (A2b) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The null-hypothesis could not be rejected. Both materials performed similarly regarding clinical performance within the first year of clinical service. SABF exhibited slightly inferior, but clinically fully acceptable esthetic properties as compared to FOBF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this study, the self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed promising results and may be recommended for clinical use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8791912
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87919122022-02-02 One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study Cieplik, Fabian Scholz, Konstantin J. Anthony, Julian C. Tabenski, Isabelle Ettenberger, Sarah Hiller, Karl-Anton Buchalla, Wolfgang Federlin, Marianne Clin Oral Investig Original Article OBJECTIVES: In the context of the phase-down of amalgam, development of easily applicable, permanent restorative materials is of high clinical interest. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel, tooth-colored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative (SABF, 3M Oral Care) and a conventional bulk-fill composite (Filtek One, 3M Oral Care; FOBF) for restoring class II cavities. The null-hypothesis tested was that both materials perform similar regarding clinical performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized split-mouth study, 30 patients received one SABF and one FOBF restoration each. Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) was used as adhesive for FOBF (self-etch mode), while SABF was applied directly without adhesive. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded examiners at baseline, 6 months and 12 months employing FDI criteria. Non-parametric statistical analyses and χ(2)-tests (α = 0.05) were applied. RESULTS: Thirty patients (60 restorations) were available for the 6- and 12-month recalls exhibiting 100% restoration survival. All restorations revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores at all time points and for all criteria. Only regarding esthetic properties, FOBF performed significantly better than SABF regarding surface lustre (A1) and color match and translucency (A3) at all time points and marginal staining (A2b) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The null-hypothesis could not be rejected. Both materials performed similarly regarding clinical performance within the first year of clinical service. SABF exhibited slightly inferior, but clinically fully acceptable esthetic properties as compared to FOBF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this study, the self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed promising results and may be recommended for clinical use. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-06-15 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8791912/ /pubmed/34129074 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04019-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Cieplik, Fabian
Scholz, Konstantin J.
Anthony, Julian C.
Tabenski, Isabelle
Ettenberger, Sarah
Hiller, Karl-Anton
Buchalla, Wolfgang
Federlin, Marianne
One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
title One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
title_full One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
title_fullStr One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
title_full_unstemmed One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
title_short One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
title_sort one-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class ii cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8791912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34129074
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04019-y
work_keys_str_mv AT cieplikfabian oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy
AT scholzkonstantinj oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy
AT anthonyjulianc oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy
AT tabenskiisabelle oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy
AT ettenbergersarah oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy
AT hillerkarlanton oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy
AT buchallawolfgang oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy
AT federlinmarianne oneyearresultsofanovelselfadhesivebulkfillrestorativeandaconventionalbulkfillcompositeinclassiicavitiesarandomizedclinicalsplitmouthstudy