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)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gindri, Larissa D’Olanda, Cassol, Igor Perlin, Fröhlich, Tatiana Tambara, Rocha, Rachel de Oliveira
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