Y Kitasako1, A Sadr2, M F Burrow3, J Tagami1. 1. Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Associate Director in Biomimetics Biomaterials Biophotonics and Technology Laboratory, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 3. Biomaterials, Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized controlled study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly filled flowable composite compared to a conventional paste-type composite in direct posterior restorations after 36 months. METHODS:A total of 58 mid-size to extensive posterior composite restorations were randomly placed in 32 patients, mean age of 43.9 years (range 25-76), using either a conventional composite Estelite Sigma Quick (Conventional) or a highly filled flowable composite G-aenial Universal Flo with a two-step self-etch adhesive. The restorations were evaluated after placement (baseline) and at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. RESULTS: At the 36-month follow-up, 42 restorations were evaluated in 21 patients. After 36 months, the difference between highly filled flowable and conventional restorations was not statistically significant with respect to all evaluation parameters (p < 0.05). No secondary caries was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The highly filled flowable composite showed a comparable clinical effectiveness as the conventional paste composite in posterior restorations over 36 months.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized controlled study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly filled flowable composite compared to a conventional paste-type composite in direct posterior restorations after 36 months. METHODS: A total of 58 mid-size to extensive posterior composite restorations were randomly placed in 32 patients, mean age of 43.9 years (range 25-76), using either a conventional composite Estelite Sigma Quick (Conventional) or a highly filled flowable composite G-aenial Universal Flo with a two-step self-etch adhesive. The restorations were evaluated after placement (baseline) and at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. RESULTS: At the 36-month follow-up, 42 restorations were evaluated in 21 patients. After 36 months, the difference between highly filled flowable and conventional restorations was not statistically significant with respect to all evaluation parameters (p < 0.05). No secondary caries was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The highly filled flowable composite showed a comparable clinical effectiveness as the conventional paste composite in posterior restorations over 36 months.