Katrin Heck1, Juergen Manhart2, Reinhard Hickel2, Christian Diegritz2. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestr. 70, 80336 Munich, Germany. Electronic address: kheck@dent.med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestr. 70, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this RCT was to compare the 10-year clinical performance of QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single- or multi-surface cavities. METHODS:46 QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in 14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 stress bearing class I and 45 class II cavities, were assessed. RESULTS: Ten failed restorations were observed during the follow-up period, four Tetric Ceram restorations failed due to secondary caries (2), tooth fracture (1) and bulk fracture combined with secondary caries (1) whereas six QuiXfil restorations failed due to secondary caries (1), tooth fracture (2), secondary caries combined with restoration fracture (1), restoration fracture (1) and postoperative sensitivity (1). Fisher's exact test yielded no significant difference between both materials (p=0.487). SIGNIFICANCE: Both materials, bulk fill QuiXfil restorations and Tetric Ceram restorations, showed highly clinical effectiveness during the 10-year follow-up.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this RCT was to compare the 10-year clinical performance of QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single- or multi-surface cavities. METHODS: 46 QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in 14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 stress bearing class I and 45 class II cavities, were assessed. RESULTS: Ten failed restorations were observed during the follow-up period, four Tetric Ceram restorations failed due to secondary caries (2), tooth fracture (1) and bulk fracture combined with secondary caries (1) whereas six QuiXfil restorations failed due to secondary caries (1), tooth fracture (2), secondary caries combined with restoration fracture (1), restoration fracture (1) and postoperative sensitivity (1). Fisher's exact test yielded no significant difference between both materials (p=0.487). SIGNIFICANCE: Both materials, bulk fill QuiXfil restorations and Tetric Ceram restorations, showed highly clinical effectiveness during the 10-year follow-up.
Authors: Britta Hahn; Imme Haubitz; Ralf Krug; Gabriel Krastl; Sebastian Soliman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 4.614