OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the clinical performance of a nanohybrid and a low shrinkage posterior composite in Class I and II restorations after two years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 82 Class I and Class II cavities were restored in 31 patients (10 male, 21 female) by one clinician using Grandio and Quixfil and the manufacturers' self-etch adhesives (Futura Bond and Xeno III) according to the manufacturers' instructions. Two previously calibrated operators clinically evaluated the restorations one week after placement (baseline) and six months, one year and two years after placement using modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was completed using the Pearson Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test (p<0.05). RESULTS: All patients attended the 12-month recall and no lack of retention was observed. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and surface texture, no significant differences have been found between the two restorative materials that were tested after 12 months (p>0.05). None of the restorations had shown any marginal discoloration and anatomic form loss until the end of the 12-month period. Two-year recall data demonstrated an 83.87% recall rate (26 patients). Grandio restorations showed a significant deterioration of the surface properties that demonstrated 26% Bravo scores, which are still clinically acceptable. None of the restorations exhibited postoperative sensitivity at any evaluation period. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that nanofill (Grandio) and posterior composite (Quixfil) demonstrated acceptable clinical performance after two years. However, further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the clinical performance of a nanohybrid and a low shrinkage posterior composite in Class I and II restorations after two years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 82 Class I and Class II cavities were restored in 31 patients (10 male, 21 female) by one clinician using Grandio and Quixfil and the manufacturers' self-etch adhesives (Futura Bond and Xeno III) according to the manufacturers' instructions. Two previously calibrated operators clinically evaluated the restorations one week after placement (baseline) and six months, one year and two years after placement using modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was completed using the Pearson Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test (p<0.05). RESULTS: All patients attended the 12-month recall and no lack of retention was observed. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and surface texture, no significant differences have been found between the two restorative materials that were tested after 12 months (p>0.05). None of the restorations had shown any marginal discoloration and anatomic form loss until the end of the 12-month period. Two-year recall data demonstrated an 83.87% recall rate (26 patients). Grandio restorations showed a significant deterioration of the surface properties that demonstrated 26% Bravo scores, which are still clinically acceptable. None of the restorations exhibited postoperative sensitivity at any evaluation period. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that nanofill (Grandio) and posterior composite (Quixfil) demonstrated acceptable clinical performance after two years. However, further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.
Authors: Larissa Marinho Azevedo; Leslie Carol Casas-Apayco; Carlos Andres Villavicencio Espinoza; Linda Wang; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro; Maria Teresa Atta Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.698
Authors: Ranulfo Gianordoli-Neto; Gislaine Cristina Padovani; José Mondelli; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro; Juliano Sartori Mendonça; Sérgio Lima Santiago Journal: J Conserv Dent Date: 2016 Jul-Aug