PURPOSE: This split-mouth, blind study evaluated the clinical performance of Dyract AP, F2000, and Heliomolar placed in primary molars of 30 children (mean age, 6 years and 2 months). MATERIALS AND METHODS:From a total of 79 restorations accomplished, 27 were built with Heliomolar (18 Class I, and 9 Class II), 30 were with F2000 (21 Class I and 9 Class II), and 22 were built with Dyract AP (14 Class I and 8 Class II). All of teeth restored had primary caries lesions. At 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, 60 restorations (75%) were evaluated using USPHS criteria for: color match (CM), marginal adaptation (MA), marginal discoloration (MD), anatomic form (AF) and secondary caries (SC) by three calibrated operators. The Alpha+Bravo score percentage was considered as clinical success. The data were subjected to statistical analysis by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: Heliomolar showed the smallest success clinical at 12 months for marginal adaptation and secondary caries, and at 18 months for marginal discoloration. Regarding color match and anatomic form, no significant differences were found among the groups at each evaluation period. When materials were compared, Heliomolar did not show a significant difference among the evaluated periods for any criteria, remaining with the lowest scores. Significant differences were observed at 12 months for F2000 (marginal adaptation), and at 24 months for Dyract AP (marginal discoloration and secondary caries) and for F2000 (color match and marginal discoloration). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that Dyract AP and F2000 showed the best clinical performance over 24 month-evaluations for marginal discoloration and secondary caries, and color match and marginal adaptation, respectively. The use of the resin composite Heliomolar in Class I/II restorations in primary molars should be carefully considered.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This split-mouth, blind study evaluated the clinical performance of Dyract AP, F2000, and Heliomolar placed in primary molars of 30 children (mean age, 6 years and 2 months). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a total of 79 restorations accomplished, 27 were built with Heliomolar (18 Class I, and 9 Class II), 30 were with F2000 (21 Class I and 9 Class II), and 22 were built with Dyract AP (14 Class I and 8 Class II). All of teeth restored had primary caries lesions. At 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, 60 restorations (75%) were evaluated using USPHS criteria for: color match (CM), marginal adaptation (MA), marginal discoloration (MD), anatomic form (AF) and secondary caries (SC) by three calibrated operators. The Alpha+Bravo score percentage was considered as clinical success. The data were subjected to statistical analysis by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: Heliomolar showed the smallest success clinical at 12 months for marginal adaptation and secondary caries, and at 18 months for marginal discoloration. Regarding color match and anatomic form, no significant differences were found among the groups at each evaluation period. When materials were compared, Heliomolar did not show a significant difference among the evaluated periods for any criteria, remaining with the lowest scores. Significant differences were observed at 12 months for F2000 (marginal adaptation), and at 24 months for Dyract AP (marginal discoloration and secondary caries) and for F2000 (color match and marginal discoloration). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that Dyract AP and F2000 showed the best clinical performance over 24 month-evaluations for marginal discoloration and secondary caries, and color match and marginal adaptation, respectively. The use of the resin composite Heliomolar in Class I/II restorations in primary molars should be carefully considered.
Authors: Y Li; C Carrera; R Chen; J Li; P Lenton; J D Rudney; R S Jones; C Aparicio; A Fok Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 8.947