Abstract
Purpose: To compare different concepts of direct composite restorations in class-II cavities using bulk-fill composites and a conventional composite with different layer thicknesses in a clinical study over a period of 2 years. Materials and Methods: A low-viscosity (SDR), a high-viscosity bulk-fill (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) and a conventional nanohybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram) were randomly assigned and placed in different layer thicknesses up to 4 mm in 160 class-II cavities in 94 patients. Restorations were clinically examined at baseline (n = 160), after 12 (n = 150) and 24 months (n = 148) and evaluated according to eight selected FDI criteria. In case of complete loss of the restoration or irreversible pulpitic symptoms, the restoration was rated as failure;repair was considered as relative failure. Results: The materials investigated showed no significant differences regarding the FDI scores and failure rate during the entire follow-up. After 12 months, 7 failures and after 24 months a total of 8 failures were observed. After 2 years, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with a 4-mm layer thickness and SDR in combination with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with a 2-mm layer thickness exhibited a non-significant tendency towards increased hypersensitivity (FDI score 5) as compared to the reference material Tetric EvoCeram with a 2-mm layer thickness (p = 0.051;Kruskal-Wallis test). Conclusion: The clinical stability of bulk-fill materials in layers up to 4 mm is comparable to nanohybrid composites after 2 years.
| Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
|---|---|
| Fakultät: | Medizin |
| Themengebiete: | 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
| ISSN: | 1461-5185 |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Dokumenten ID: | 99014 |
| Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 05. Jun. 2023, 15:30 |
| Letzte Änderungen: | 17. Okt. 2023, 15:00 |
- Dokument bearbeiten
