Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026
Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques in Class I restorations using Smart Dentin Replacement Plus and Tetric N-Ceram: A prospective randomized split-mouth clinical trial.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Jyotiyana Mohit Kumar, Prasad Ashwini B, Raisingani Deepak, Srivastava Harshit, Thanvi Charu, Karale Aishwarya G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Polymerization shrinkage and postoperative sensitivity remain significant concerns in posterior composite restorations. Although bulk-fill composites simplify clinical procedures, their long-term clinical performance compared with incremental techniques remains controversial.
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Smart Dentin Replacement Plus (SDR+) and Tetric N-Ceram composites when placed using incremental and bulk-fill techniques in Class I pit and fissure cavities over a 6- and 12-month follow-up period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized split-mouth clinical trial included 44 patients (18-35 years) with Class I pit and fissure caries. Teeth were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 11): SDR+ bulk-fill, SDR+ incremental, Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill, and Tetric N-Ceram incremental. Restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months for postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries using clinical examination, caries detector dye under ×6, and bitewing radiographs. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: At 6 and 12 months, the incremental technique groups demonstrated significantly higher clinical success (90.91%) compared with the bulk-fill groups (SDR+ - 45.45% and Tetric N-Ceram - 54.55%) (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between SDR+ and Tetric N-Ceram when identical placement techniques were used.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Placement technique plays a more decisive role than composite material selection in the long-term success of posterior restorations.
CONCLUSION: Incremental placement technique showed superior clinical performance compared to the bulk-fill technique in Class I restorations, irrespective of the composite material used.
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Smart Dentin Replacement Plus (SDR+) and Tetric N-Ceram composites when placed using incremental and bulk-fill techniques in Class I pit and fissure cavities over a 6- and 12-month follow-up period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized split-mouth clinical trial included 44 patients (18-35 years) with Class I pit and fissure caries. Teeth were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 11): SDR+ bulk-fill, SDR+ incremental, Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill, and Tetric N-Ceram incremental. Restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months for postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries using clinical examination, caries detector dye under ×6, and bitewing radiographs. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: At 6 and 12 months, the incremental technique groups demonstrated significantly higher clinical success (90.91%) compared with the bulk-fill groups (SDR+ - 45.45% and Tetric N-Ceram - 54.55%) (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between SDR+ and Tetric N-Ceram when identical placement techniques were used.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Placement technique plays a more decisive role than composite material selection in the long-term success of posterior restorations.
CONCLUSION: Incremental placement technique showed superior clinical performance compared to the bulk-fill technique in Class I restorations, irrespective of the composite material used.