Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months

Menezes-Silva, Rafael; Velasco, Sofia Rafaela Maito; Bastos, Roosevelt da Silva; Molina, Gustavo Fabían; Honório, H.M.; Frencken, Jo E.; Navarro, M F L

doi:10.1007/s00784-018-2787-1

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In literature, although clinical studies 16 , 38 , 39 with very low failure rate are available, the high failure rate (31%) was shown for HVGIC after 12 months in our study. Menezes-Silva, et al 38 (2016) reported that excellent success rates were shown, and the authors attributed the high success rate in their study to the fact that most of the cavities were relatively small and that they prepared additional retentions in proximal boxes. Whereas in our study the cavity size was mostly moderate and additional retention was not prepared.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations. Methodology: In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests. Results: At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05). Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26,27 Outcomes from different clinical trials demonstrate acceptable properties of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements compared to resin composite in single-and multiple-surface restorations in posterior permanent teeth. 28,29 These aspects require further research attention, however, in the population with disability.…”

Section: Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

High-viscosity glass-ionomer vs. composite resin restorations in persons with disability: Five-year follow-up of clinical trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the 5-year cumulative survival of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer restorations (ART/HVGIC) and conventional resin composite restorations (CRT) placed in patients with intellectual and/or physical disability. Patients referred for restorative care to a special care service in Córdoba, Argentina, were recruited. Patients and/or caregivers were provided with written and verbal information regarding treatment options and selected the alternative they preferred. The treatment protocols were ART (hand instruments/HVGIC) in the clinic or CRT (rotary instrumentation/resin composite) in the clinic or under general anaesthesia (GA). Two independent, trained and calibrated examiners evaluated restoration survival using established ART codes after 6, 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. The proportional hazard model with frailty corrections provided survival estimates. Jackknife errors were used to test 5-year results. Sixty-six patients (13.6 ± 7.8 years) with 16 different medical conditions participated. CRT in the clinic proved feasible for five patients (13%), and 14 patients received CRT under GA (21%). ART was provided for 47 patients (71.2%). A total number of 298 dentine carious lesions were restored in primary and permanent teeth (182 ART; 116 CRT). Four patients died between the 3 and 5-year follow up. Percentage survival and jackknife standard error were calculated and were significantly higher for all ART/HVGIC restorations (90.2% ± 2.6) than for all CRT restorations (82.8% ± 5.3), 5 years after placement (p=0.044). These 5-year follow-up results confirm that ART/HVGIC is an effective treatment protocol for patients with disability, equal to that of conventional resin composite restoration. The results of this clinical trial support the use of ART as an evidence-based treatment resource contributing to the reduction of inequalities in access to oral health care among people with disability.

show abstract

“…A randomized clinical trial concluded that the restoration survival rate after CR restoration of a class II cavity was 98.7% at 12 months [20]. A clinical study reported that 90% of direct CR restorations assessed with modified United States Public Health Service criteria (tooth color stability, surface texture, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, gingival inflammation, and restoration color stability) were clinically excellent or acceptable at 24 months [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pulp survival after composite resin restoration of caries lesions in adults

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimal intervention is generally achieved by using direct composite resin (CR) restorations. However, deep caries lesions may lead to pulpal complications. This study evaluated the risk of endodontic complications after CR restoration in relation to depth of caries lesions. Data on 507 teeth from 316 adults treated with CR were analyzed. Caries depth was expressed as a percentage of the distance between the outer edge of the dental enamel and the pulp base on preoperative radiographs. The interval between CR restoration and follow-up root canal treatment was obtained from electronic treatment records for a period of 24 months. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the association between risk of endodontic complications and caries depth. Sixteen teeth (3.2%) required root canal treatment within 24 months. No root canal treatment was required after CR treatment for caries affecting <50% of the outer edge of enamel and pulp. As compared with CR treatment of caries lesions with a size of <80%, there was a significantly higher risk of root canal treatment for caries lesions with a size of 80% to 89% (hazard ratio, [95%

show abstract

Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months

Cited by 23 publications

References 36 publications

A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

High-viscosity glass-ionomer vs. composite resin restorations in persons with disability: Five-year follow-up of clinical trial

Pulp survival after composite resin restoration of caries lesions in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About