A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques

Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes; Mailart, Mariane Cintra; Crastechini, Érica; Feitosa, Fernanda Alves; Esteves, Stella Renato Machado; Nicoló, Rebéca Di; Borges, Alessandra Bühler

doi:10.1007/s00784-019-02999-6

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…26 They stated that the restoration performance could be considered clinically acceptable when there is only 5% or less of the evaluated restorations was lost and no critical microleakage was found at the 6-month follow-up. 14 Based upon the previous findings, both techniques offer clinically acceptable functioning restorations at 1 year. The proposed hypothesis is accepted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…It was selected to offer the patient with indirect restorations that can be done in the same visit with good clinical performance. 14 This technique was found to be a good substitute to restorations made by CAD/CAM technology, as it offered comparable marginal and internal fit, while being less time-consuming and more cost-effective. 2 For the clinical assessment of the performance of the restorations, modified USPHS criteria were chosen because they are the most commonly used criteria for the evaluation of dental restorations among research studies according to a systematic review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Regarding the results of gross fracture of the restoration both groups did not exhibit any fracture. Both the groups' materials are characterized by having improved mechanical characteristics 5,14 and fractures of the restorative system is usually a long-term failure. 13 Notably, patients with parafunctional habits were excluded in this study, and bruxism is one of the influencing patient risk factors affecting the failure rate of posterior resin composite restorations causing restoration fracture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial)

ElAziz

Mohammed

Gomaa

2020

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Short-fiber-reinforced resin composite (SFRC) is a direct bulk fill resin composite specially indicated in large complex cavities. It is characterized by having high fracture toughness and load bearing capacity to decrease the incidence of fracture of the restoration. Materials and methods: In two parallel groups (n = 38 restorations), 76 participants having complex proximal cavities with asymptomatic vital pulp were randomly enrolled in this trial and received either SFRC (Ever X Posterior, GC, Japan) covered by Gaenial posterior (GC, Japan) or chairside indirect restorations (Grandioso inlay system; VOCO, Germany) fabricated on a silicon die. Materials were applied according to the manufacturer instructions with the corresponding adhesive system. Only 67 participants completed the trial, which was assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by two independent blinded assessors at 6 months and 1 year follow-up visits. Statistical analysis: Fisher's exact and Cochran's Q tests were used to analyze inter-and intragroup comparisons, respectively. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between both tested groups for all USPHS criteria at different follow-up periods except for marginal integrity favoring the SFRC at 12 months when the difference became significant (p < 0.001), and color match favoring the nanohybrid indirect resin composite restorations with significant difference in scores at all follow-up intervals (p < 0.001) was found. Cochran's Q test showed significant differences within the same technique during the follow-up period for some criteria. Conclusion: Direct SFRC and indirect nanohybrid resin composite complex proximal restorations showed an acceptable clinical performance along the 1 year follow-up period. Clinical relevance: Direct SFRC restorations could be a viable treatment option for complex restorative cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial)

ElAziz

Mohammed

Gomaa

2020

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 This could be attributed to that both types of composites are characterized by having low polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress which are the predisposing factors to marginal adaptation failure. 29 The microhybrid resin composite with inorganic fillers and prepolymerized fillers reduce the polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress by increasing the available sites for composite flow due to reduction of coupling agents. 1 SFRC contains short Eglass fibers and the linear chains of PMMA in the cross-linked matrix decreasing the shrinkage strain values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Fracture of Fiber Reinforced Resin Composite Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Endodontically Treated Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Kandil¹,

Farid²,

Ibrahim³

2021

IJPHRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Short fiber reinforced resin composite (Ever X Posterior) is a bulk fill resin composite indicated as a core dentine substitute at high stress-bearing areas improve strength and fracture toughness of conventional resin composite and restored teeth. So, this randomized clinical trial was conducted to validate clinical performance of short fiber reinforced resin composite in endodontically treated molars.Method: 56 participants having endodontically treated lower molars with moderate amount of remaining tooth structure were randomly enrolled in this trial and received either Ever X Posterior covered by Gaenial posterior or only Gaenial posterior resin composite that applied according to manufacturer instructions. Mann-Whitney U test was used for intergroup comparisons and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for intragroup comparisons. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. No statistically significant difference was observed between both tested groups for all USPHS criteria at different follow-up periods except for color match favoring Gaenial posterior with a significant difference between both groups. Conclusion:Both types of restorations showed an acceptable clinical performance along 1 year follow-up period.

show abstract

“…Torres ve ark. 106 direk/semidirek tekniği kullandığı çalışmada ise postoperatif hassasiyet direk teknikle yapılan restorasyonlarda, marjinal kırık semidirek teknikle yapılan restorasyonlarda daha fazla gözlenmiştir. Literatürde indirek restorasyonların aşınma dirençlerinin düşük olduğu bildirilmiştir.…”

Section: • Adeziv Sistem Ve Kompozit Uygulama Yöntemiunclassified

Son 10 Yılda Kompozit Rezin Restorasyonlar: İn Vivo ve İn Vitro Çalışmalarla Bir Derleme

Ünlü¹,

ÜLKÜ²

2020

neudentj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kompozit rezinlerin 1962 yılında Bowen tarafından tanıtılmalarıyla başlayan süreçte, hastaların estetik beklentisinin artması ve amalgam hakkındaki endişeler kompozit rezinleri tercih edilen materyal haline getirmiştir. Kompozit rezinlerin estetik olması, konservatif kavite preparasyonuna imkan sağlaması ve tamir edilebilmesi avantajlarının yanı sıra polimerizasyon büzülmesi, fonksiyonel tüberküllerde kullanımında aşınma direncinin az olması gibi dezavantajları bulunmaktadır. 1960'ların başından günümüze kadar kompozit rezinler hakkında çeşitli araştırmalar yapılmış, kompozit rezin materyali geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Geliştirilen özellikler ve bu alanda yapılan araştırmalar ile kompozit rezinlerin dezavantajlarının elimine edilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bununla birlikte literatürde kompozit rezin ile ilgili hem in vivo hem de in vitro araştırmalar ın sayısı da artmıştır . Literatürdeki in vivo araştırmalarda hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti ve incelenen toplam hasta sayısı gibi hastaya ait veriler yer almakla birlikte kullanılan materyaller, materyallerin klinik değerlendirme kriterlerine ait veriler, restorasyon ömrü gibi veriler de çalışmanın değerlendirilen verileri arasında yer almaktadır. Bu makalede, kompozit rezin restorasyonlar ve diğer restoratif materyaller ile ilgili literatürde yapılan 2010 ve sonrası in vivo ve in vitro çalışmalar derlenmiş ve bu çalışmalarda yer alan tüm veriler incelenerek tablolar halinde sunulmuştur.

show abstract

A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques

Cited by 14 publications

References 43 publications

Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial)

Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial)

Clinical Fracture of Fiber Reinforced Resin Composite Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Endodontically Treated Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Son 10 Yılda Kompozit Rezin Restorasyonlar: İn Vivo ve İn Vitro Çalışmalarla Bir Derleme

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About