Clinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite as occlusal restorative material in primary molars: one-year results

Abstract

Purpose:The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the 1 year clinical performances of a self-adhering flowable composite and a commercially available self-etch adhesive/composite system in occlusal restorations of primary second molars.Materials and methods:Thirty-one patients (10 male, 21 female) were recruited into the study. A total of 62 occlusal cavities were restored with either a universal composite or a self-adhering flowable composite according to manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated 1 month after placement as baseline, and after 3, 6 months and 1 year post-operatively using modified USPHS criteria by two operators.Results:Lack of retention was not observed in any of the restorations. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and surface texture, no significant differences were found between two restorative materials tested after 1 year. None of the restorations had marginal discoloration and anatomic form loss on the 1 year follow-up. Restorations did not exhibit post-operative sensitivity at any evaluation period.Conclusion:The clinical assessment of self-adhering flowable composite exhibited good clinical results with predominating alpha scores after 1 year. Advantage of the application convenience for children is promising for self-adhered flowable composite materials in pediatric use.

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

“…Adper Single Bond (15 s etching) 2. Adper Single Bond 2 (7 s etching) (3M ESPE) 100 Class I restorations 1. n = 50 2. n = 50 18 months FDI Survival rates were as follows: 15 s etching = 78.3% 7 s etching = 92% The etching time did not influence the outcome of the restorations, although a reduced time showed better tendency Yazicioglu et al [ 27 ] RCT 31 4–9 years old Mean: 6.67 1. Vertise flow (Kerr) 2.…”

“…In all of the studies a split mouth design is mentioned, except for Cavalheiro et al [ 26 ] in which there is no mention of paired restorations. Considering the interventions studied: five trials looked at different resin composites [ 27 – 29 , 31 , 32 ], two looked at different adhesive systems [ 30 , 33 ], while one researched surface pre-treatments [ 26 ]. Cavalheiro et al [ 26 ] study evaluated reducing the etching time of an etch-and-rinse contemporary adhesive [ 26 ].…”

“…Two studies investigated novel self-adhesive composites in comparison to traditional materials. Both studied Vertise Flow (Kerr) and compared it to traditional composites bonded with an adhesive [ 27 , 31 ]. Lenzi et al [ 30 ] evaluated two different application modes of a universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal, 3M ESPE).…”

“…The mean number of participants in the clinical studies included was 42.6 (± 18.8) participants, with the lowest number participants being in the non-randomized trial which included only 28 participants [ 28 ]. Out of all the studies only Yazicioglu et al [ 27 ], Oter et al [ 29 ] and Lenzi et al [ 30 ] reported sample and power calculations.…”

“…Overall, most studies were classified as raising some concerns (4/8–50%) [ 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 ], while 2 studies were judged to be high-risk bias [ 28 , 33 ], and two were classified as low-risk bias [ 26 , 30 ]. The results for each domain and the overall judgment are illustrated in Fig.…”