OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance and volumetric wear of a flowable resin composite compared to a conventional highly filled composite resinin Class I restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this single-center, single-blinded, comparator-controlled clinical study (Institutional Review Board approved), 120 carious teeth distributed in 60 patients were randomly assigned to four calibrated practitioners who placed occlusal restorations (n=60 flowable and n=60 conventional composite). Direct and indirect assessment at baseline, six months, one year, and two years occurred during which the modified Cvar and Ryge criteria were evaluated. Volumetric wear was determined by superimposition of profilometer scans of baseline and two-year casts. RESULTS: At two years, there was no significant difference in anatomic form (p=0.80), color match (p=0.08), marginal adaptation (p=0.89), marginal discoloration (p=0.79), surface integrity (p=0.18), secondary caries (p=0.66), cold sensitivity (p=0.522), occlusal sensitivity (p=0.818), or volumetric wear (p=0.661) between materials. Both materials showed a decrease in all criteria except secondary caries (p=0.95) over time. Two-year mean volumetric wear was 3.16 ± 2.38 mm(3) for the flowable composite and 3.43 ± 2.50 mm(3) for the conventional composite. CONCLUSIONS: The flowable and conventional composites used in this study have similar clinical efficacy after two years of service when placed as Class I occlusal restorations having isthmus widths less than one-half the intercuspal distance.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance and volumetric wear of a flowable resin composite compared to a conventional highly filled composite resin in Class I restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this single-center, single-blinded, comparator-controlled clinical study (Institutional Review Board approved), 120 carious teeth distributed in 60 patients were randomly assigned to four calibrated practitioners who placed occlusal restorations (n=60 flowable and n=60 conventional composite). Direct and indirect assessment at baseline, six months, one year, and two years occurred during which the modified Cvar and Ryge criteria were evaluated. Volumetric wear was determined by superimposition of profilometer scans of baseline and two-year casts. RESULTS: At two years, there was no significant difference in anatomic form (p=0.80), color match (p=0.08), marginal adaptation (p=0.89), marginal discoloration (p=0.79), surface integrity (p=0.18), secondary caries (p=0.66), cold sensitivity (p=0.522), occlusal sensitivity (p=0.818), or volumetric wear (p=0.661) between materials. Both materials showed a decrease in all criteria except secondary caries (p=0.95) over time. Two-year mean volumetric wear was 3.16 ± 2.38 mm(3) for the flowable composite and 3.43 ± 2.50 mm(3) for the conventional composite. CONCLUSIONS: The flowable and conventional composites used in this study have similar clinical efficacy after two years of service when placed as Class I occlusal restorations having isthmus widths less than one-half the intercuspal distance.
Authors: Akimasa Tsujimoto; Wayne W Barkmeier; Nicholas G Fischer; Kie Nojiri; Yuko Nagura; Toshiki Takamizawa; Mark A Latta; Masashi Miazaki Journal: Jpn Dent Sci Rev Date: 2017-12-11