| Autor: |
Browning, William D., Myers, Michael L., Chan, Daniel C. N., Downey, Mary C., Pohjola, Randal M., Frazier, Kevin B. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Quintessence International; May2006, Vol. 37 Issue 5, p361-368, 8p, 4 Charts |
| Abstrakt: |
Objective: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the marginal seal of 2 packable resin composite materials in moderate to large lesions on molars. Method and Materials: Fifty participants in need of a moderate to large Class 2 or complex Class 1 molar restoration were randomly distributed into 4 groups, to receive either Alert (Jeneric/Pentron) or SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) resin composite with or without a surface sealer. Each participant received one restoration. With the exception that study protocol limited increments to no more than 4 mm, teeth were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions, and surface sealer was applied after finishing in the desig- nated groups. Use of Alert includes routine placement of a flowable composite liner. Clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated in 8 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The 2 materials were compared to determine if a difference in marginal seal existed between groups. The number of restorations exhibiting marginal staining was compared using Fischer's exact test at a significance level of 5%. Results: Six participants did not present for the 12-month recall, At 12 months, 19(90.5%) Alert restorations and 15 (68.2%) SureFil restorations did not exhibit marginal staining. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 restorative materials for marginal staining. Overall, 3 restorations were rated as failures. Conclusion: At 12 months, materi- als placed with a flowable liner were not associated with a significant reduction in margin- al staining. (Quintessence mt 2006;3736 1-368) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
