A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques
| Autor: | Rebeca Di Nicoló, Mariane Cintra Mailart, Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres, Erica Crastechini, Stella Renato Machado Esteves, Fernanda Alves Feitosa, Alessandra Bühler Borges |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Large class
Nanohybrid composite Resin composite operative [Restorative dentistry] Dentistry Dental Caries Composite Resins Dental clinics law.invention Dental Materials 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial law Adhesive system Humans Medicine Statistical analysis Dental Restoration Failure Prospective Studies Dental Restoration Permanent General Dentistry Composites Randomized controlled clinical trials business.industry Significant difference Clinical performance 030206 dentistry Dental Marginal Adaptation 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis business Follow-Up Studies |
| Zdroj: | Scopus Repositório Institucional da UNESP Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
| Popis: | Made available in DSpace on 2019-10-06T17:14:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2019-01-01 Objective: This prospective study evaluated the clinical performance of large class II restorations made with different techniques over 24 months. Materials and methods: Thirty patients received two class II restorations (n = 60) using a nanohybrid composite and different restorative techniques (direct (DT), semidirect (SDT)), in a split-mouth randomized design. The same adhesive system was applied for all restorations. For DT, the restorative material was applied directly inside the tooth preparation. For SDT, a tooth preparation impression was obtained using alginate and a silicone flexible die was prepared. The restoration was made chairside on the model and additionally light cured. After that, it was cemented in preparation using resinous cement. All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after 7 days, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: After 24 months, 24 patients attended the recall and 48 restorations were evaluated. Fisher’s statistical analysis (5%) showed no difference between the techniques. Nevertheless, Friedman’s test showed significant differences for some criteria after 12 months of evaluation for both techniques. Postoperative sensitivity was reported in one DT restoration. Also, after 24 months, one SDT restoration presented marginal fracture, which was deemed unsatisfactory. Conclusions: After a 24-month follow-up, no significant difference between the tested techniques was detected. The restorations performed with both techniques produced clinically acceptable restorations. Clinical relevance: This study demonstrated the viability of applying two different operatory techniques (direct and semidirect) for class II resin composite restorations. Institute of Science and Technology Department of Restorative Dentistry São Paulo State University - UNESP, Avenida Engenheiro Francisco José Longo, 777, Jardim São Dimas Institute of Science and Technology Department of Restorative Dentistry São Paulo State University - UNESP, Avenida Engenheiro Francisco José Longo, 777, Jardim São Dimas |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|