Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025
Clinical Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fill Composite Versus Conventional Nano-Hybrid Composite in Cervical Cavities-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
El-Shazly Riham Kamal, El-Zayat Inas Mohsen Ali, Mohsen Mohamed Mahmoud Abdel, Labib Mohamed Essam Mohamed
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial assessed the clinical performance and survival of the self-adhesive bulk-fill composite Surefil One compared to conventional composite, Neo Spectra, in class V restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four carious cervical lesions in 15 patients were divided into two groups in a split-mouth study: Group I (27 restorations) used Neo Spectra ST HV composite with Prime&Bond Universal adhesive, while Group II (27 restorations) utilized Surefil One. The study included a 1-year follow-up, with assessments at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria and Visual Analogue Scores for patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included Chi-Square test, paired t-tests, and repeated measures ANOVA, with significance set at α = 0.05.
RESULTS: Both composites performed clinically well over the 12 months. Neo Spectra demonstrated superior performance to Surefil One in color match, marginal integrity, discoloration, and surface roughness. However, both materials showed similar results in retention, secondary caries, and marginal integrity. Both materials showed no significant differences in intergroup comparisons across baseline, 6-month, and 12-month assessments and no statistically significant changes in VAS scores over time within each group.
CONCLUSIONS: While Surefil One and Neo Spectra exhibited comparable clinical functionality, Neo Spectra demonstrated superior esthetic quality. Both materials achieved equivalent patient satisfaction levels, implying the need for further investigations to assess their long-term clinical performance.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Assessing the clinical performance of Surefil One and Neo Spectra composites in class V cavities is very valuable. Understanding the behavior of such materials in non-load-bearing areas will help clinicians make evidence-based decisions about selecting restorative materials that balance durability and esthetics according to each patient's needs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four carious cervical lesions in 15 patients were divided into two groups in a split-mouth study: Group I (27 restorations) used Neo Spectra ST HV composite with Prime&Bond Universal adhesive, while Group II (27 restorations) utilized Surefil One. The study included a 1-year follow-up, with assessments at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria and Visual Analogue Scores for patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included Chi-Square test, paired t-tests, and repeated measures ANOVA, with significance set at α = 0.05.
RESULTS: Both composites performed clinically well over the 12 months. Neo Spectra demonstrated superior performance to Surefil One in color match, marginal integrity, discoloration, and surface roughness. However, both materials showed similar results in retention, secondary caries, and marginal integrity. Both materials showed no significant differences in intergroup comparisons across baseline, 6-month, and 12-month assessments and no statistically significant changes in VAS scores over time within each group.
CONCLUSIONS: While Surefil One and Neo Spectra exhibited comparable clinical functionality, Neo Spectra demonstrated superior esthetic quality. Both materials achieved equivalent patient satisfaction levels, implying the need for further investigations to assess their long-term clinical performance.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Assessing the clinical performance of Surefil One and Neo Spectra composites in class V cavities is very valuable. Understanding the behavior of such materials in non-load-bearing areas will help clinicians make evidence-based decisions about selecting restorative materials that balance durability and esthetics according to each patient's needs.