Florian Beck1, Nicoleta Dumitrescu1, Franz König2, Alexandra Graf2, Peter Bauer2, Wolfgang Sperr1, Andreas Moritz1, Andreas Schedle3. 1. Central Research Unit and Department of Conservative Dentistry, Bernhard Gottlieb University Clinic of Dentistry, Vienna, Austria. 2. Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Central Research Unit and Department of Conservative Dentistry, Bernhard Gottlieb University Clinic of Dentistry, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: andreas.schedle@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective randomized-controlled clinical trial is to assess the long-term performance of two direct composite resins in posterior teeth. This study provides a survey of the one-year results. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 1805 restorations were placed by students in stress-bearing Class I/II cavities (including cuspal-coverage) in molars and premolars in 456 patients. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after one year using modified USPHS criteria. The restorations in each patient were performed either with Ceram X/Prime&Bond NT or Tetric Ceram/Optibond Solo Plus. RESULTS: After one year 528 fillings with Ceram X and 580 with Tetric Ceram were available for evaluation of substance loss, contact point, color match, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and radiographic examination (if necessary). This represents a recall rate of 61.18% (279 patients). The failure rate per material was 5.3% in the Ceram X group and 6.1% in the Tetric Ceram group. Most of the failures were associated with marginal adaptation/integrity of the filling. A significant influence on the occurrence of a failure was observed for the number of treated teeth per patient, the age of the patient, the mesio-distal extension of the restoration and the tooth position. Gender, material, a previous root canal treatment, the bucco-lingual extension of the filling or cuspal-coverage did not significantly influence the failure rate. Patients attending the first recall were significantly older and had more fillings than patients not attending. CONCLUSIONS: In a group of Class I/II restorations (including cuspal-coverage), there was no significant difference in failure rates between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems after one year. A previous root canal treatment had no negative influence on the failure rate. A longer observation period is indicated to get clear evidence of the long-term performance of these composite resin systems.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective randomized-controlled clinical trial is to assess the long-term performance of two direct composite resins in posterior teeth. This study provides a survey of the one-year results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1805 restorations were placed by students in stress-bearing Class I/II cavities (including cuspal-coverage) in molars and premolars in 456 patients. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after one year using modified USPHS criteria. The restorations in each patient were performed either with Ceram X/Prime&Bond NT or Tetric Ceram/Optibond Solo Plus. RESULTS: After one year 528 fillings with Ceram X and 580 with Tetric Ceram were available for evaluation of substance loss, contact point, color match, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and radiographic examination (if necessary). This represents a recall rate of 61.18% (279 patients). The failure rate per material was 5.3% in the Ceram X group and 6.1% in the Tetric Ceram group. Most of the failures were associated with marginal adaptation/integrity of the filling. A significant influence on the occurrence of a failure was observed for the number of treated teeth per patient, the age of the patient, the mesio-distal extension of the restoration and the tooth position. Gender, material, a previous root canal treatment, the bucco-lingual extension of the filling or cuspal-coverage did not significantly influence the failure rate. Patients attending the first recall were significantly older and had more fillings than patients not attending. CONCLUSIONS: In a group of Class I/II restorations (including cuspal-coverage), there was no significant difference in failure rates between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems after one year. A previous root canal treatment had no negative influence on the failure rate. A longer observation period is indicated to get clear evidence of the long-term performance of these composite resin systems.
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