Journal of the West African College of Surgeons · 2026
Comparative Evaluation of Composite Resin Bonded with Novel and Conventional Bonding Agents for Cost Effectiveness, Retention, and Secondary Caries: A Clinical Study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ilyas Farkhaunda, Sneharaj N, Subramaniam Priya, Kiran K
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Restoring aesthetics in primary teeth presents a significant challenge for dentists due to factors such as thin enamel, unique pulpal anatomy, and the small size of these teeth. Discolouration, malformation, extensive caries, or damage from trauma in primary teeth often raise considerable concerns for both patients and their parents. Composite resin has become one of the most popular and reliable tooth-colour restorative materials, offering excellent aesthetic outcomes.
AIM: To evaluate the cost effectiveness, retention, and secondary caries of universal adhesive Tetric N-Bond Vivapen and conventional adhesives followed by the composite restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two dental adhesive products was used: conventional adhesive and Tetric N-Bond universal Vivapen. The study included 30 children who required composite restoration and were divided into two groups. Group 1 was treated with conventional adhesive and Group 2 with Tetric N-bond. After treatment, the cost-effectiveness was assessed immediately, and children were followed-up after 12 months for the evaluation of retention and secondary caries.
RESULTS: The study showed that Tetric N-Bond Universal Vivapen is more cost-effective than conventional adhesive. Group 2 experienced significantly better outcomes for both retention of restoration (100% vs. 53.8%, P = 0.003) and incidence of secondary caries (100% vs. 15.4%, P < 0.001) over a 1-year period compared to Group 1.
CONCLUSION: The study concludes that Tetric N-Bond Universal Vivapen is cost-effective, provides better retention, and reduces secondary caries compared to conventional adhesives, making it more durable for composite restorations in dental treatment.
AIM: To evaluate the cost effectiveness, retention, and secondary caries of universal adhesive Tetric N-Bond Vivapen and conventional adhesives followed by the composite restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two dental adhesive products was used: conventional adhesive and Tetric N-Bond universal Vivapen. The study included 30 children who required composite restoration and were divided into two groups. Group 1 was treated with conventional adhesive and Group 2 with Tetric N-bond. After treatment, the cost-effectiveness was assessed immediately, and children were followed-up after 12 months for the evaluation of retention and secondary caries.
RESULTS: The study showed that Tetric N-Bond Universal Vivapen is more cost-effective than conventional adhesive. Group 2 experienced significantly better outcomes for both retention of restoration (100% vs. 53.8%, P = 0.003) and incidence of secondary caries (100% vs. 15.4%, P < 0.001) over a 1-year period compared to Group 1.
CONCLUSION: The study concludes that Tetric N-Bond Universal Vivapen is cost-effective, provides better retention, and reduces secondary caries compared to conventional adhesives, making it more durable for composite restorations in dental treatment.