Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Two-year clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites in Class ӀӀ restorations: a randomized clinical trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Elawsya Mohamed Elshirbeny, Montaser Marmar Ahmed, El-Wassefy Noha Abdel-Mawla, Zaghloul Nadia Mohamed
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites (BFRCs) in Class ӀӀ restorations after 2 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials) guidelines. Forty patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient received three compound Class ӀӀ restorations. One dual-cure (Fill-Up; Coltene Waledent AG) and two light-cure (QuiXfil; Dentsply, and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill; Ivoclar Vivadent) BFRCs were used for 120 Class ӀӀ restorations. A universal adhesive (ONE COAT 7 UNIVERSAL; Coltene Waledent AG) was used with all restorations. Restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and finally after 24 months using the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparison between BFRCs groups at baseline and at each recall period, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparing different follow-up times of each BFRC to baseline. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: All BFRCs restorations showed only minor changes and revealed no statistically significant differences between their clinical performance for all evaluated parameters at all recall periods; also, there was no statistically significant difference between all recall periods and baseline for all evaluated parameters.
CONCLUSION: The two-year clinical performance of dual-cure BFRC was comparable to light-cure BFRCs in Class ӀӀ restorations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dual- and light-cure BFRCs showed excellent clinical performance in Class ӀӀ restorations after a 2-year clinical follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials) guidelines. Forty patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient received three compound Class ӀӀ restorations. One dual-cure (Fill-Up; Coltene Waledent AG) and two light-cure (QuiXfil; Dentsply, and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill; Ivoclar Vivadent) BFRCs were used for 120 Class ӀӀ restorations. A universal adhesive (ONE COAT 7 UNIVERSAL; Coltene Waledent AG) was used with all restorations. Restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and finally after 24 months using the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparison between BFRCs groups at baseline and at each recall period, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparing different follow-up times of each BFRC to baseline. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: All BFRCs restorations showed only minor changes and revealed no statistically significant differences between their clinical performance for all evaluated parameters at all recall periods; also, there was no statistically significant difference between all recall periods and baseline for all evaluated parameters.
CONCLUSION: The two-year clinical performance of dual-cure BFRC was comparable to light-cure BFRCs in Class ӀӀ restorations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dual- and light-cure BFRCs showed excellent clinical performance in Class ӀӀ restorations after a 2-year clinical follow-up.