Article ; Online: Comparative clinical evaluation between self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill composites in class II cavities: A 1-year randomized controlled clinical study.
2024
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 ... ...
| 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 (X 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. |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Publishing date | 2024-04-24 |
| Publishing country | England |
| Document type | Journal Article |
| ZDB-ID | 2043146-6 |
| ISSN | 1708-8240 ; 1496-4155 |
| ISSN (online) | 1708-8240 |
| ISSN | 1496-4155 |
| DOI | 10.1111/jerd.13242 |
| Database | MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE |
More links
Kategorien
In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter
| Zs.A 3314: Show issues | Location: Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand) bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG) ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG) |
Order via subito
This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.