Journals / European Oral Research / 2019 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3

Clinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite as occlusal restorative material in primary molars: one-year results

Pages
119–124
Publication Date
2019-10-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Advantage of the application convenience for children is promising for self-adhered flowable composite materials in pediatric use.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the 1 year clinical performances of a self-adhering flowable composite and a commercially available self-etch adhesive/composite system in occlusal restorations of primary second molars.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and Methods: Thirty-one patients (10 male, 21 female) were recruited into the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Advantage of the application convenience for children is promising for self-adhered flowable composite materials in pediatric use.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:self-adhesive · restorative · primary

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the 1 year clinical performances of a self-adhering flowable composite and a commercially available self-etch adhesive/composite system in occlusal restorations of primary second molars. Patients and Methods: Thirty-one patients (10 male, 21 female) were recruited into the study. A total of 62 occlusal cavities were restored with either a universal composite or a self-adhering flowable composite according to manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated 1 month after placement as baseline, and after 3, 6 months and 1 year post-operatively using modified USPHS criteria by two operators. Results: Lack of retention was not observed in any of the restorations. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and surface texture, no significant differences were found between two restorative materials tested after 1 year. None of the restorations had marginal discoloration and anatomic form loss on the 1 year follow-up. Restorations did not exhibit post-operative sensitivity at any evaluation period. Conclusion: The clinical assessment of self-adhering flowable composite exhibited good clinical results with predominating alpha scores after 1 year. Advantage of the application convenience for children is promising for self-adhered flowable composite materials in pediatric use.

🔖

Cite This Article

SERİN, B. A., YAZICIOĞLU, İ., DEVECİ, C., DOĞAN, M. C. (2019). Clinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite as occlusal restorative material in primary molars: one-year results. European Oral Research, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3, 119–124. https://ajindex.com/articles/242911

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Wright JW. The burden and management of dental caries in older children. Pediatr Clin North Am 2018; 65(5):955-963
  2. Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1497-1506
  3. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:567-577
  4. Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M, Papadogiannis Y, Lakes RS, Dionysopoulos P, Apadogiannis D. Dynamic and static elastic moduli of packable and flowable composite resins and their developmentafter initial photo curing. Dent Mater 2006;22:450-459
  5. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999;15:128-37
  6. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Moore BK, Platt JA. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 2001;26:302-307
  7. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as “filled adhesives”: literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30:249–257
  8. Cantekin K, Buyuk SK. Shear bond strength of a new low-shrinkage flowable composite for orthodontic bracket bonding. J Dent Child (Chic) 2014;81:63-66
  9. Peterson J, Rizk M, Hoch M, Wiegand A. Bonding performance of self-adhesive flowable composites to enamel, dentin and a nano-hybrid composite. Odontology 2018;106:171-180
  10. Rainer H, Michael JW, Michael JN. Marginal and internal adaptation of extended class I restorations lined with flowable composites. Journal of Dentistry 2003;31:231-239
  11. Baroudi K, Rodrigues J. Flowable resin composites: a systematic review and clinical considerations. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2015;9:ZE18-ZE24
  12. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2011;9:672–677. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.004
  13. Zanatta RF, da Silva TM, Esper MALR, Bresciani E, Caneppele TMF, Gonçalves SEP. Guidelines for conducting split-mouth clinical studies in restorative dentistry. Brazilian Dent Sci 2017;20:29. doi:10.14295/bds.2017.v20i2.1404
  14. Bayne SC1, Schmalz G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:209