Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026
Self-adhesive flowable resin composite for occluso-proximal restorations in primary teeth: restorative time and fracture resistance analysis.
СтатьяОценочное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brustolin Tyler Zanella, Cavalheiro Cleber Paradzinski, Castillo Duvan Cala, Pereira Gabriel Kalil Rocha, Lenzi Tathiane Larissa
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study evaluated the restorative time and fracture resistance of occluso-proximal restorations in primary molars using a self-adhesive flowable resin composite, a flowable resin composite, and a conventional resin composite.
METHODOLOGY: Thirty primary molars received two standardized occluso-proximal cavities and were randomly assigned to three groups (n=10): (1) self-adhesive flowable resin composite (Yflow SA), with the entire cavity restored; (2) universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal) in self-etch mode + flowable resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT Flow), with the entire cavity restored; and (3) universal adhesive in self-etch mode + conventional resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT), inserted incrementally. Restoration time was measured using a digital chronometer, and all teeth underwent 14 days of pH cycling before the fracture resistance test. Mean fracture resistance values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner tests were used to compare the restoration time among groups. Failure modes were analyzed descriptively.
RESULTS: The self-adhesive flowable resin composite required the shortest restoration time, followed by the flowable resin composite and the conventional resin composite (p<0.001). Fracture resistance was significantly lower in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group compared to the flowable and conventional resin composite groups (p<0.01). Adhesive failures predominated in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group (45%), while mixed failures were more frequent in the other restorative approaches (70-75%).
CONCLUSION: In a laboratory setting, the use of a self-adhesive flowable resin composite for the entire cavity compromised the fracture resistance of occluso-proximal restorations in primary molars, despite reducing operative time.
METHODOLOGY: Thirty primary molars received two standardized occluso-proximal cavities and were randomly assigned to three groups (n=10): (1) self-adhesive flowable resin composite (Yflow SA), with the entire cavity restored; (2) universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal) in self-etch mode + flowable resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT Flow), with the entire cavity restored; and (3) universal adhesive in self-etch mode + conventional resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT), inserted incrementally. Restoration time was measured using a digital chronometer, and all teeth underwent 14 days of pH cycling before the fracture resistance test. Mean fracture resistance values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner tests were used to compare the restoration time among groups. Failure modes were analyzed descriptively.
RESULTS: The self-adhesive flowable resin composite required the shortest restoration time, followed by the flowable resin composite and the conventional resin composite (p<0.001). Fracture resistance was significantly lower in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group compared to the flowable and conventional resin composite groups (p<0.01). Adhesive failures predominated in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group (45%), while mixed failures were more frequent in the other restorative approaches (70-75%).
CONCLUSION: In a laboratory setting, the use of a self-adhesive flowable resin composite for the entire cavity compromised the fracture resistance of occluso-proximal restorations in primary molars, despite reducing operative time.