OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth in a randomised trial over 30 months. METHODS:Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with a nanofill (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE), a nanohybrid (Esthet-X, Dentsply); Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) was used as a control. After 30 months, the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the US Public Health Service (USPHS) modified criteria. The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis, at a level of significance of 5%. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the roughness of Filtek Z250 (p=0.008) and Filtek Z350 (p<0.001) when the four time periods (baseline, 6 months, 12 months and 30 months) were compared. There were significant differences in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 (p=0.001), Filtek Z350 (p<0.001) and Esthet-X (p=0.011). Except for one of each composite restoration, all the modifications ranged from Alpha to Bravo. There were significant differences in the surface roughness (p=0.005) when the three composites were compared after 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: The materials investigated showed acceptable clinical performance after 30 months. Long-term re-evaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites (CEP: #1252).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth in a randomised trial over 30 months. METHODS: Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with a nanofill (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE), a nanohybrid (Esthet-X, Dentsply); Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) was used as a control. After 30 months, the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the US Public Health Service (USPHS) modified criteria. The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis, at a level of significance of 5%. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the roughness of Filtek Z250 (p=0.008) and Filtek Z350 (p<0.001) when the four time periods (baseline, 6 months, 12 months and 30 months) were compared. There were significant differences in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 (p=0.001), Filtek Z350 (p<0.001) and Esthet-X (p=0.011). Except for one of each composite restoration, all the modifications ranged from Alpha to Bravo. There were significant differences in the surface roughness (p=0.005) when the three composites were compared after 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: The materials investigated showed acceptable clinical performance after 30 months. Long-term re-evaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites (CEP: #1252).
Authors: Márcia de Almeida Durão; Ana Karina Maciel de Andrade; Maria do Carmo Moreira da Silva Santos; Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes; Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2020-11-26