Rafael Menezes-Silva1, S R M Velasco2, R S Bastos3, G Molina4, H M Honório3, J E Frencken5, M F L Navarro6. 1. Department of Dental Materials, Endodontics and Operative Dentistry, Bauru School of Dentistry, Bauru, Brazil. rafa18ms@hotmail.com. 2. Public Health Faculty, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, Bauru, Brazil. 4. Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, National University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina. 5. Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Dental Materials, Endodontics and Operative Dentistry, Bauru School of Dentistry, Bauru, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of class II restorations, in permanent teeth, through the ART technique in comparison to composite resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (154), aged 8 to 19 years, with good general health, with class II cavities in permanent teeth, and without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included in this parallel and randomized clinical trial. The Ethics Committee approval number was CAAE: 24012913.0.1001.5417. Seventy-seven restorations were made with each restorative material (Equia Fil-GC Corporation and Z350-3M). Evaluations occurred at 6 and 12 months by the criteria of ART and the USPHS modified. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney, chi-square, Fisher's exact, chi-square tests with linear trend and logistic regression by enter method (p < 0.050). The Kaplan-Meier test evaluated the survival rates of the restorations. The log-rank test compared the survival curves. RESULTS: Regardless of the evaluation criteria used, the success rates of ART restorations were 98.7% (6 months) and 95.8% (12 months) and for composite resins were 100% (6 months) and 98.7% (12 months), with no statistical difference of restoration groups (p > 0.050). Survival rates for restorations, regardless of the evaluation criteria used, are the same as the success rates, with the exception of ART restorations at 12 months of follow-up (94.8%). CONCLUSION: No differences in the success rates of class II restorations of ART compared to resin composite, in permanent teeth, were observed after 12 months. CLINIC SIGNIFICANT: HVGIC can safely be used to restore proximal cavities in permanent teeth up to 12 months.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of class II restorations, in permanent teeth, through the ART technique in comparison to composite resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (154), aged 8 to 19 years, with good general health, with class II cavities in permanent teeth, and without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included in this parallel and randomized clinical trial. The Ethics Committee approval number was CAAE: 24012913.0.1001.5417. Seventy-seven restorations were made with each restorative material (Equia Fil-GC Corporation and Z350-3M). Evaluations occurred at 6 and 12 months by the criteria of ART and the USPHS modified. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney, chi-square, Fisher's exact, chi-square tests with linear trend and logistic regression by enter method (p < 0.050). The Kaplan-Meier test evaluated the survival rates of the restorations. The log-rank test compared the survival curves. RESULTS: Regardless of the evaluation criteria used, the success rates of ART restorations were 98.7% (6 months) and 95.8% (12 months) and for composite resins were 100% (6 months) and 98.7% (12 months), with no statistical difference of restoration groups (p > 0.050). Survival rates for restorations, regardless of the evaluation criteria used, are the same as the success rates, with the exception of ART restorations at 12 months of follow-up (94.8%). CONCLUSION: No differences in the success rates of class II restorations of ART compared to resin composite, in permanent teeth, were observed after 12 months. CLINIC SIGNIFICANT: HVGIC can safely be used to restore proximal cavities in permanent teeth up to 12 months.
Authors: J De Munck; K Van Landuyt; M Peumans; A Poitevin; P Lambrechts; M Braem; B Van Meerbeek Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: R Hickel; J-F Roulet; S Bayne; S D Heintze; I A Mjör; M Peters; V Rousson; R Randall; G Schmalz; M Tyas; G Vanherle Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2007-01-30 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mario Bernardo; Henrique Luis; Michael D Martin; Brian G Leroux; Tessa Rue; Jorge Leitão; Timothy A DeRouen Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Daniel Maranha da Rocha; João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Pietro Ausiello; Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva; Milena Cerqueira da Rocha; Rebeca Di Nicoló; Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges Journal: Restor Dent Endod Date: 2019-08-07
Authors: Rafael Menezes-Silva; Sofia R Maito Velasco; Eduardo BRESCIANi; Roosevelt da Silva Bastos; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.698