Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres1, Mariane Cintra Mailart2, Érica Crastechini2, Fernanda Alves Feitosa2, Stella Renato Machado Esteves2, Rebeca Di Nicoló2, Alessandra Bühler Borges2. 1. Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Restorative Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, Avenida Engenheiro Francisco José Longo, 777, Jardim São Dimas, São José dos Campos, SP, 12245-000, Brazil. carlos.rg.torres@unesp.br. 2. Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Restorative Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, Avenida Engenheiro Francisco José Longo, 777, Jardim São Dimas, São José dos Campos, SP, 12245-000, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This prospective study evaluated the clinical performance of large class II restorations made with different techniques over 24 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty patients received two class II restorations (n = 60) using ananohybrid composite and different restorative techniques (direct (DT), semidirect (SDT)), in a split-mouth randomized design. The same adhesive system was applied for all restorations. For DT, the restorative material was applied directly inside the tooth preparation. For SDT, a tooth preparation impression was obtained using alginate and a silicone flexible die was prepared. The restoration was made chairside on the model and additionally light cured. After that, it was cemented in preparation using resinous cement. All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after 7 days, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: After 24 months, 24 patients attended the recall and 48 restorations were evaluated. Fisher's statistical analysis (5%) showed no difference between the techniques. Nevertheless, Friedman's test showed significant differences for some criteria after 12 months of evaluation for both techniques. Postoperative sensitivity was reported in one DT restoration. Also, after 24 months, one SDT restoration presented marginal fracture, which was deemed unsatisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: After a 24-month follow-up, no significant difference between the tested techniques was detected. The restorations performed with both techniques produced clinically acceptable restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrated the viability of applying two different operatory techniques (direct and semidirect) for class II resin composite restorations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This prospective study evaluated the clinical performance of large class II restorations made with different techniques over 24 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients received two class II restorations (n = 60) using a nanohybrid composite and different restorative techniques (direct (DT), semidirect (SDT)), in a split-mouth randomized design. The same adhesive system was applied for all restorations. For DT, the restorative material was applied directly inside the tooth preparation. For SDT, a tooth preparation impression was obtained using alginate and a silicone flexible die was prepared. The restoration was made chairside on the model and additionally light cured. After that, it was cemented in preparation using resinous cement. All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after 7 days, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: After 24 months, 24 patients attended the recall and 48 restorations were evaluated. Fisher's statistical analysis (5%) showed no difference between the techniques. Nevertheless, Friedman's test showed significant differences for some criteria after 12 months of evaluation for both techniques. Postoperative sensitivity was reported in one DT restoration. Also, after 24 months, one SDT restoration presented marginal fracture, which was deemed unsatisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: After a 24-month follow-up, no significant difference between the tested techniques was detected. The restorations performed with both techniques produced clinically acceptable restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrated the viability of applying two different operatory techniques (direct and semidirect) for class II resin composite restorations.
Authors: Karin Sunnegårdh-Grönberg; Jan W V van Dijken; Ulrika Funegård; Anders Lindberg; Mats Nilsson Journal: J Dent Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Álfheiður Ástvaldsdóttir; Jessica Dagerhamn; Jan W V van Dijken; Aron Naimi-Akbar; Gunilla Sandborgh-Englund; Sofia Tranæus; Mikael Nilsson Journal: J Dent Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres; Heleine Maria Chagas Rêgo; Letícia C C Costa Perote; Luciana F Thives F Santos; Maria Beatriz Beber Kamozaki; Natália Cortez Gutierrez; Rebeca Di Nicoló; Alessandra Bühler Borges Journal: J Dent Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 4.379