Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Clinical Performance of Nanofilled and Microhybrid Direct Composite Restorations on Endodontically Treated Teeth


Akalιn, T T; Bozkurt, F O; Tuncer, A K; Bağ, H G; Özcan, M (2019). Clinical Performance of Nanofilled and Microhybrid Direct Composite Restorations on Endodontically Treated Teeth. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, 27(1):39-47.

Abstract

This study evaluated the clinical performance of direct restorations made of nanofilled and microhybrid resin composites in endodontically treated teeth. Twenty patients (11 males, 9 females; mean age: 34.2±10) that met the inclusion criteria received a total of 48 restorations. After employing etch-and-rinse adhesive system, one dentist placed all restorations using either a nanofilled (Filtek Ultimate) or microhybrid (Filtek Z250) resin composite. The restorations were clinically reviewed at baseline, 6 months, and up to 2 years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The changes were analyzed using the McNemar test and marginal homogeneity tests (p⟨0.05). The mean observation period was 17.4 months. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, and surface texture, no significant differences were found between the two restorative materials (p⟩0.05). Most restorations yielded alpha or bravo scores with respect to the evaluation criteria. Five restorations failed due to chipping up to 2 years (1 microhybrid at 6 m, and 3 at 2 years; 1 nanofilled at 2 y) and were repaired. One complete replacement and one extraction due to endodontic complications were needed for 2 microhybrid resin group at 2 years.

Abstract

This study evaluated the clinical performance of direct restorations made of nanofilled and microhybrid resin composites in endodontically treated teeth. Twenty patients (11 males, 9 females; mean age: 34.2±10) that met the inclusion criteria received a total of 48 restorations. After employing etch-and-rinse adhesive system, one dentist placed all restorations using either a nanofilled (Filtek Ultimate) or microhybrid (Filtek Z250) resin composite. The restorations were clinically reviewed at baseline, 6 months, and up to 2 years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The changes were analyzed using the McNemar test and marginal homogeneity tests (p⟨0.05). The mean observation period was 17.4 months. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, and surface texture, no significant differences were found between the two restorative materials (p⟩0.05). Most restorations yielded alpha or bravo scores with respect to the evaluation criteria. Five restorations failed due to chipping up to 2 years (1 microhybrid at 6 m, and 3 at 2 years; 1 nanofilled at 2 y) and were repaired. One complete replacement and one extraction due to endodontic complications were needed for 2 microhybrid resin group at 2 years.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 31 Jan 2020
2 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:22 February 2019
Deposited On:31 Jan 2020 10:01
Last Modified:01 Feb 2020 08:54
Publisher:Mosby-Year Book Europe
ISSN:0965-7452
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01638Akalin09
PubMed ID:30779495

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members