Comparative clinical evaluation between self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill composites in class II cavities: A 1-year randomized controlled clinical study

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-04-24 DOI:10.1111/jerd.13242
Mohamed S. Ellithy BDS, Mohamed H. Abdelrahman MSc, PhD, Rania R. Afifi MSc, PhD
{"title":"Comparative clinical evaluation between self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill composites in class II cavities: A 1-year randomized controlled clinical study","authors":"Mohamed S. Ellithy BDS,&nbsp;Mohamed H. Abdelrahman MSc, PhD,&nbsp;Rania R. Afifi MSc, PhD","doi":"10.1111/jerd.13242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This randomized controlled clinical trial compared the clinical efficacy of self-adhesive bulk-fill Surefil One with a traditional bulk-fill composite in class II restorations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty-four direct class II composite restorations were categorized into two groups. Group I, control group (<i>n</i> = 32): cavities were restored by Filtek One bulk-fill composite with Scotchbond Universal (SBU) adhesive in self-etch mode, Group II, test group (<i>n</i> = 32): cavities were restored by Surefil One self-adhesive bulk-fill composite. The study involved a follow-up period of 1 year, during which restorations were assessed at baseline (BL), 6 months, and 12 months using Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Data analysis was performed using nonparametric tests. A comparison of restoration characteristics was performed utilizing the chi-square test (<i>X</i><sup>2</sup>). The significance level was set at 0.05.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Filtek One and Surefil One bulk-fill composites revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores over 12-month recalls. Thirty-two patients (64 restorations) were available for all follow-up visits; 100% of the restorations survived. For esthetic properties, Filtek One was far better than Surefil One at all time points. However, in terms of functional and biological properties, both restorations demonstrated comparable performances.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Filtek One bulk-fill restorations were superior in terms of surface luster, surface staining, color match, and translucency, but Surefil One restorations performed well and were similar to Filtek One restorations; however, additional advancements and research are needed to obtain better esthetics. Furthermore, longitudinal studies with extended follow-up periods are needed to assess the clinical potential of both materials.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Clinical Significance</h3>\n \n <p>Both Filtek One and Surefil One met the FDI criteria, with Filtek One demonstrating superior esthetic and functional qualities and similar performance regarding biological criteria. Both innovative restorative materials show potential for clinical use. Trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number; NCT06120868:07/11/2023.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jerd.13242","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This randomized controlled clinical trial compared the clinical efficacy of self-adhesive bulk-fill Surefil One with a traditional bulk-fill composite in class II restorations.

Materials and Methods

Sixty-four direct class II composite restorations were categorized into two groups. Group I, control group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Filtek One bulk-fill composite with Scotchbond Universal (SBU) adhesive in self-etch mode, Group II, test group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Surefil One self-adhesive bulk-fill composite. The study involved a follow-up period of 1 year, during which restorations were assessed at baseline (BL), 6 months, and 12 months using Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Data analysis was performed using nonparametric tests. A comparison of restoration characteristics was performed utilizing the chi-square test (X2). The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

Filtek One and Surefil One bulk-fill composites revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores over 12-month recalls. Thirty-two patients (64 restorations) were available for all follow-up visits; 100% of the restorations survived. For esthetic properties, Filtek One was far better than Surefil One at all time points. However, in terms of functional and biological properties, both restorations demonstrated comparable performances.

Conclusions

Filtek One bulk-fill restorations were superior in terms of surface luster, surface staining, color match, and translucency, but Surefil One restorations performed well and were similar to Filtek One restorations; however, additional advancements and research are needed to obtain better esthetics. Furthermore, longitudinal studies with extended follow-up periods are needed to assess the clinical potential of both materials.

Clinical Significance

Both Filtek One and Surefil One met the FDI criteria, with Filtek One demonstrating superior esthetic and functional qualities and similar performance regarding biological criteria. Both innovative restorative materials show potential for clinical use. Trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number; NCT06120868:07/11/2023.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自粘复合材料与传统体填充复合材料在 II 类龋洞中的临床对比评估:为期一年的随机对照临床研究
这项随机对照临床试验比较了自粘性散装填充 Surefil One 与传统散装填充复合材料在 II 类修复体中的临床疗效。第一组,对照组(32 人):使用 Filtek One 体积填充复合材料和 Scotchbond Universal (SBU) 粘接剂在自酸蚀模式下对龋洞进行修复;第二组,试验组(32 人):使用 Surefil One 自粘性体积填充复合材料对龋洞进行修复。该研究的随访期为 1 年,在此期间采用国际牙科联盟(FDI)的标准对修复体进行基线(BL)、6 个月和 12 个月的评估。数据分析采用非参数检验。修复体特征的比较采用卡方检验(X2)。结果Filtek One 和 Surefil One 体积填充复合材料在 12 个月的回顾中显示出临床上可接受的 FDI 分数。32 名患者(64 个修复体)接受了所有随访;100% 的修复体存活。就美学特性而言,Filtek One 在所有时间点上都远远优于 Surefil One。结论Filtek One膨体充填修复体在表面光泽、表面染色、颜色匹配和半透明性方面更胜一筹,但 Surefil One修复体的表现良好,与Filtek One修复体相似;不过,要获得更好的美学效果,还需要更多的进步和研究。临床意义Filtek One 和 Surefil One 都达到了 FDI 标准,其中 Filtek One 表现出更高的美学和功能质量,在生物学标准方面表现相似。两种创新修复材料都显示出临床应用的潜力。试验已在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,注册号为 NCT06120868:07/11/2023。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
124
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) is the longest standing peer-reviewed journal devoted solely to advancing the knowledge and practice of esthetic dentistry. Its goal is to provide the very latest evidence-based information in the realm of contemporary interdisciplinary esthetic dentistry through high quality clinical papers, sound research reports and educational features. The range of topics covered in the journal includes: - Interdisciplinary esthetic concepts - Implants - Conservative adhesive restorations - Tooth Whitening - Prosthodontic materials and techniques - Dental materials - Orthodontic, periodontal and endodontic esthetics - Esthetics related research - Innovations in esthetics
期刊最新文献
Introducing a novel approach to dental color reproduction using AI technology. Issue Information The following article for this Special issue was published in a different issue The Punch Graft Technique: A Simplified Protocol for Three-Dimensional Peri-Implant Soft and/or Hard Tissue Augmentation in a Single Step. Comparison of Film Thickness of Restorative Composites Considered for Thermo-Modified Cementation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1