Cargando…
One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial
This double-blind, randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and clinical time to restore occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars withbulk-fillresin and conventional resin. A total of 140 class II restorations in primary molars of 65 participants (mean age of 6.7 + 1.5)...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9733372/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36477958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202205069 |
_version_ | 1784846360073207808 |
---|---|
author | Gindri, Larissa D’Olanda Cassol, Igor Perlin Fröhlich, Tatiana Tambara Rocha, Rachel de Oliveira |
author_facet | Gindri, Larissa D’Olanda Cassol, Igor Perlin Fröhlich, Tatiana Tambara Rocha, Rachel de Oliveira |
author_sort | Gindri, Larissa D’Olanda |
collection | PubMed |
description | This double-blind, randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and clinical time to restore occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars withbulk-fillresin and conventional resin. A total of 140 class II restorations in primary molars of 65 participants (mean age of 6.7 + 1.5) were placed in two random groups:bulk-filland conventional resin. The restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at the baseline, 6-month, and one year by a single calibrated examiner, and the clinical restorative time was measured with a digital timer. The success and survival of the restorations were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier graphs. The log-rank test compared the curves. Differences in restorative clinical time were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was 5%. After one year, 115 restorations were evaluated. The success probability was 88.7% for Filtek Z350 XT and 85.9% for FiltekTM Bulk-fill, and for the survival probability, Filtek Z350 XT presented 90%, and FiltekTM Bulk-fill presented 93.7%. No significant difference was found between the success and survival curves (p=0.62), (p=0.51). The main reason for failure was marginal adaptation.Bulk-fillresin required 30% less time than the conventional resin (p<0.001).Bulk-fillresin presented similar clinical performance to the conventional resin and required less restorative clinical time. It is an option to restore class II lesions of primary molars. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9733372 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97333722022-12-13 One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial Gindri, Larissa D’Olanda Cassol, Igor Perlin Fröhlich, Tatiana Tambara Rocha, Rachel de Oliveira Braz Dent J Article This double-blind, randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and clinical time to restore occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars withbulk-fillresin and conventional resin. A total of 140 class II restorations in primary molars of 65 participants (mean age of 6.7 + 1.5) were placed in two random groups:bulk-filland conventional resin. The restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at the baseline, 6-month, and one year by a single calibrated examiner, and the clinical restorative time was measured with a digital timer. The success and survival of the restorations were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier graphs. The log-rank test compared the curves. Differences in restorative clinical time were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was 5%. After one year, 115 restorations were evaluated. The success probability was 88.7% for Filtek Z350 XT and 85.9% for FiltekTM Bulk-fill, and for the survival probability, Filtek Z350 XT presented 90%, and FiltekTM Bulk-fill presented 93.7%. No significant difference was found between the success and survival curves (p=0.62), (p=0.51). The main reason for failure was marginal adaptation.Bulk-fillresin required 30% less time than the conventional resin (p<0.001).Bulk-fillresin presented similar clinical performance to the conventional resin and required less restorative clinical time. It is an option to restore class II lesions of primary molars. Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto 2022-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9733372/ /pubmed/36477958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202205069 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License |
spellingShingle | Article Gindri, Larissa D’Olanda Cassol, Igor Perlin Fröhlich, Tatiana Tambara Rocha, Rachel de Oliveira One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial |
title | One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial |
title_full | One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial |
title_fullStr | One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial |
title_short | One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial |
title_sort | one-year clinical evaluation of class ii bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9733372/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36477958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202205069 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gindrilarissadolanda oneyearclinicalevaluationofclassiibulkfillrestorationsinprimarymolarsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT cassoligorperlin oneyearclinicalevaluationofclassiibulkfillrestorationsinprimarymolarsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT frohlichtatianatambara oneyearclinicalevaluationofclassiibulkfillrestorationsinprimarymolarsarandomizedclinicaltrial AT rocharacheldeoliveira oneyearclinicalevaluationofclassiibulkfillrestorationsinprimarymolarsarandomizedclinicaltrial |