Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2023
Influence of surface sealants on the quality of posterior restorations with bulk-fill composites: A 4-year randomized clinical trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Calazans Fernanda Signorelli, Ferreira Thárcila de Medeiros Jabor, Ñaupari-Villasante Romina, Mendonça Rafael Pinto, Ornellas Giulia, Albuquerque Elisa Gomes, Tardem Chane, de Miranda Mauro Sayao, Barceleiro Marcos O, Loguercio Alessandro D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of surface sealants associated with a bulk-fill composite in posterior restorations after 4 years.
METHODS: A total of 174 posterior restorations were performed on 57 participants using a self-etch adhesive system and a bulk-fill composite. The groups were then divided into the following categories: 1) without surface sealant (NoS), 2) with surface sealant Biscover (Bisco, SBi), and 3) with surface sealant Permaseal (Ultradent, SPe). Restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at baseline and after 1 and 4 years. Statistical analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the Chi-square test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: After 4 years, only one restoration was lost (1 in the NoS group). The fracture/retention rate (with 95% confidence interval) was 98% for NoS and 100% for both SBi and SPe (p = 0.76). The majority of secondary outcomes showed minor defects, with no significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of marginal staining and marginal adaptation (p = 0.03). In both items, twelve restorations (nine in NoS, one in SBi, and two in SPe) showed minor marginal discrepancies favoring the sealant groups (SBi and SPe).
SIGNIFICANCE: Regardless of the use of surface sealants, the bulk-fill composite restorations showed excellent clinical performance after 4 years. However, the groups that received sealants showed better marginal adaptation and less marginal discoloration compared to those that did not receive sealants.
METHODS: A total of 174 posterior restorations were performed on 57 participants using a self-etch adhesive system and a bulk-fill composite. The groups were then divided into the following categories: 1) without surface sealant (NoS), 2) with surface sealant Biscover (Bisco, SBi), and 3) with surface sealant Permaseal (Ultradent, SPe). Restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at baseline and after 1 and 4 years. Statistical analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the Chi-square test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: After 4 years, only one restoration was lost (1 in the NoS group). The fracture/retention rate (with 95% confidence interval) was 98% for NoS and 100% for both SBi and SPe (p = 0.76). The majority of secondary outcomes showed minor defects, with no significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of marginal staining and marginal adaptation (p = 0.03). In both items, twelve restorations (nine in NoS, one in SBi, and two in SPe) showed minor marginal discrepancies favoring the sealant groups (SBi and SPe).
SIGNIFICANCE: Regardless of the use of surface sealants, the bulk-fill composite restorations showed excellent clinical performance after 4 years. However, the groups that received sealants showed better marginal adaptation and less marginal discoloration compared to those that did not receive sealants.