OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of a hybrid (Clearfil AP-X; AP) and a flowable (Clearfil Flow FX; FX) resin composite in 98 non-carious cervical lesions. METHODS:Twenty-two patients, 11 males and 11 females (mean age: 61.9 years, range: 29-78 years) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital, participated in the study. Each patient received both materials randomly. All restorations (48 restorations for AP and 50 restorations for FX) were placed in conjunction with an all-in-one system (Clearfil S(3) Bond) by one dentist. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years using modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran's Q-test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: All the patients were examined at each recall. However, five restorations could not be evaluated at 3-year recall as two teeth had been extracted and three restorations had been lost. The only minor problem was the integrity of the enamel margin. The incidence and extent of marginal staining increased with time, but it was still superficial. Marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations for AP and 12 restorations for FX after 3 years. Neither lesion size nor depth had influence on marginal staining adjacent to each type of resin composite. There were no significant differences in the clinical performances between AP and FX for each variable. CONCLUSIONS: Under the protocol used in this study, both types of resin composite in conjunction with S(3) Bond demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 3 years. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of a hybrid (Clearfil AP-X; AP) and a flowable (Clearfil Flow FX; FX) resin composite in 98 non-carious cervical lesions. METHODS: Twenty-two patients, 11 males and 11 females (mean age: 61.9 years, range: 29-78 years) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital, participated in the study. Each patient received both materials randomly. All restorations (48 restorations for AP and 50 restorations for FX) were placed in conjunction with an all-in-one system (Clearfil S(3) Bond) by one dentist. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years using modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran's Q-test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: All the patients were examined at each recall. However, five restorations could not be evaluated at 3-year recall as two teeth had been extracted and three restorations had been lost. The only minor problem was the integrity of the enamel margin. The incidence and extent of marginal staining increased with time, but it was still superficial. Marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations for AP and 12 restorations for FX after 3 years. Neither lesion size nor depth had influence on marginal staining adjacent to each type of resin composite. There were no significant differences in the clinical performances between AP and FX for each variable. CONCLUSIONS: Under the protocol used in this study, both types of resin composite in conjunction with S(3) Bond demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 3 years. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Marleen Peumans; Jan De Munck; Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Andre Poitevin; Paul Lambrechts; Bart Van Meerbeek Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: R Banu Ermis; Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Marcio Vivan Cardoso; Jan De Munck; Bart Van Meerbeek; Marleen Peumans Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2011-05-21 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Analia Veitz-Keenan; Julie Ann Barna; Brad Strober; Abigail G Matthews; Damon Collie; Donald Vena; Frederick A Curro; Van P Thompson Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.634