Clinical oral investigations · 2023
Various ways of pre-heating a bulk-fill thermoviscous composite in restoration in non-carious cervical lesions: 12-month 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.
Favoreto Michael Willian, de Souza Carneiro Taynara, Wendlinger Michel, Ñaupari-Villasante Romina, de Matos Thalita Paris, Kunz Patricia Manozzo, Reis Alessandra, Loguercio Alessandro D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to evaluate through a randomized clinical trial the best method to preheat a composite resin, if using a Caps dispenser device associated with Caps Warmer (CD) or with a VisCalor Caps dispenser/warmer (VD) for restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty restorations were distributed to two groups (n = 60) according to the pre-heating way of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite resin. For the CD group, pre-heating was carried at 68 °C using a heating bench for 3 min. For the VD group, pre-heating was performed at 68 °C using a heating gun for 30 s. After that, pre-heated bulk-fill composites were directly inserted in the NCCLs. The total working time was recorded. The restorations were evaluated after 6 and 12 months of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test for unpaired samples for working time, and the Chi-square test for restoration clinical performance (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Working time was shorter for VD with a statistically significant difference compared to CD (p = 0.01). Few restorations were lost or fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (p > 0.05). The retention rates were 96.7% (CI 95 %: 88.6-99.1%) for CD and 98.3% (CI 95 %: 91.1-99.7%) for VD. The other FDI parameters were considered clinically acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS: The different pre-heating ways did not influence the clinical performance of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite restorations in NCCLs after 12 months.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regardless of the bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin pre-heating ways, the restorations are clinically acceptable after 12 months.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty restorations were distributed to two groups (n = 60) according to the pre-heating way of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite resin. For the CD group, pre-heating was carried at 68 °C using a heating bench for 3 min. For the VD group, pre-heating was performed at 68 °C using a heating gun for 30 s. After that, pre-heated bulk-fill composites were directly inserted in the NCCLs. The total working time was recorded. The restorations were evaluated after 6 and 12 months of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test for unpaired samples for working time, and the Chi-square test for restoration clinical performance (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Working time was shorter for VD with a statistically significant difference compared to CD (p = 0.01). Few restorations were lost or fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (p > 0.05). The retention rates were 96.7% (CI 95 %: 88.6-99.1%) for CD and 98.3% (CI 95 %: 91.1-99.7%) for VD. The other FDI parameters were considered clinically acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS: The different pre-heating ways did not influence the clinical performance of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite restorations in NCCLs after 12 months.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regardless of the bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin pre-heating ways, the restorations are clinically acceptable after 12 months.