{"title":"Two-year clinical evaluation of Class I composite resin restorations using three adhesive systems: A double-blind randomized clinical trial","authors":"Nazire Nurdan Çakır, Sezer Demirbuğa","doi":"10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.no2.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The purpose of this randomized split-mouth clinical study was to assess the effect of three adhesive systems on the 2-year clinical success of Class I composite resin restorations. Methodology: In the treatment of the Class I carious lesions of 20 participants aged 18–24 years with at least three similar carious lesions, three adhesives—Clearfil SE Bond (CSE; Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), Single Bond 2 (SB2; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), and Tri-S Bond (TSB; Kuraray, Osaka, Japan)—and a Filtek Z550 nanohybrid composite resin (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were cured. The baseline and 2-year results of the restorations were assessed according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The chi-square test was used to analyze the data obtained. Results: There was no loss of restoration in any group at 2 years. No significant differences were observed in any criteria (marginal staining, fracture retention, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity) evaluated except marginal adaptation, in accordance with FDI and USPHS criteria (p > 0.05). At 2 years, SB2 showed the best marginal adaptation, followed by CSE and TBS. There was a statistically significant difference between SB2 and TSB (p ˂ 0.05). Conclusion: All three adhesive systems can be used successfully in the restoration of Class I carious lesions. How to cite this article: Çakır Kılınç NN, Demirbuğa S. Two-year clinical evaluation of Class I composite resin restorations using three adhesive systems: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Int Dent Res 2023;13(2):67-74. https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.no2.4 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.","PeriodicalId":31322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.no2.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this randomized split-mouth clinical study was to assess the effect of three adhesive systems on the 2-year clinical success of Class I composite resin restorations. Methodology: In the treatment of the Class I carious lesions of 20 participants aged 18–24 years with at least three similar carious lesions, three adhesives—Clearfil SE Bond (CSE; Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), Single Bond 2 (SB2; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), and Tri-S Bond (TSB; Kuraray, Osaka, Japan)—and a Filtek Z550 nanohybrid composite resin (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were cured. The baseline and 2-year results of the restorations were assessed according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The chi-square test was used to analyze the data obtained. Results: There was no loss of restoration in any group at 2 years. No significant differences were observed in any criteria (marginal staining, fracture retention, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity) evaluated except marginal adaptation, in accordance with FDI and USPHS criteria (p > 0.05). At 2 years, SB2 showed the best marginal adaptation, followed by CSE and TBS. There was a statistically significant difference between SB2 and TSB (p ˂ 0.05). Conclusion: All three adhesive systems can be used successfully in the restoration of Class I carious lesions. How to cite this article: Çakır Kılınç NN, Demirbuğa S. Two-year clinical evaluation of Class I composite resin restorations using three adhesive systems: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Int Dent Res 2023;13(2):67-74. https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.no2.4 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.
目的:这项随机裂口临床研究的目的是评估三种粘接剂系统对I类复合树脂修复体2年临床成功的影响。方法:对20例18-24岁至少有3个类似龋齿的ⅰ类龋齿患者,使用3种粘接剂——clearfil SE Bond (CSE;库拉雷,大阪,日本),单键2 (SB2;3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA)和Tri-S Bond (TSB;Kuraray,大阪,日本)和Filtek Z550纳米杂化复合树脂(3M ESPE,圣保罗,MN,美国)固化。根据世界牙科联合会(FDI)和美国公共卫生局(USPHS)的标准评估修复的基线和2年结果。采用卡方检验对所得数据进行分析。结果:两组术后2年均无明显的修复损失。根据FDI和USPHS标准,除边缘适应外,其他标准(边缘染色、骨折保留、继发性龋齿和术后敏感性)均无显著差异(p >0.05)。2年时,SB2的边际适应效果最好,其次是CSE和TBS。SB2与TSB之间的差异有统计学意义(p小于0.05)。结论:三种粘接剂均可成功用于ⅰ类龋齿的修复。文章来源:Çakır Kılınç NN, Demirbuğa S.三种黏附体系的I类复合树脂修复体的2年临床评价:双盲随机临床试验。国际医学杂志,2013;13(2):67-74。https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.no2.4语言修改:本手稿中的英语已由至少两名专业编辑检查,他们都是英语母语者。