Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial


Barabanti, Nicola; Gagliani, Massimo; Roulet, Jean-François; Testori, Tiziano; Özcan, Mutlu; Cerutti, Antonio (2013). Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial. Journal of Dentistry, 41(5):436-442.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This randomised, split-mouth clinical study evaluated the marginal quality of direct Class I and Class II restorations made of microhybrid composite and applied using two polymerisation protocols, using two margin evaluation criteria.
METHODS: A total of 50 patients (mean age: 33 years) received 100 direct Class I or Class II restorations in premolars or molars. Three calibrated operators made the restorations. After conditioning the tooth with 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, restorations were made incrementally using microhybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram). Each layer was polymerised using a polymerisation device operated either at regular mode (600-650 mW/cm(2) for 20s) (RM) or high-power (1200-1300 mW/cm(2) for 10s) mode (HPM). Two independent calibrated operators evaluated the restorations 1 week after restoration placement (baseline), at 6 months and thereafter annually up to 5 years using modified USPHS and SQUACE criteria. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Alfa scores (USPHS) for marginal adaptation (86% and 88% for RM and HPM, respectively) and marginal discoloration (88% and 88%, for RM and HPM, respectively) did not show significant differences between the two-polymerisation protocols (p>0.05). Alfa scores (SQUACE) for marginal adaptation (88% and 88% for RM and HPM, respectively) and marginal discoloration (94% and 94%, for RM and HPM, respectively) were also not significantly different at 5th year (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Regular and high-power polymerisation protocols had no influence on the marginal quality of the microhybrid composite tested up to 5 years. Both modified USPHS and SQUACE criteria confirmed that regardless of the polymerisation mode, marginal quality of the restorations deteriorated compared to baseline.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This randomised, split-mouth clinical study evaluated the marginal quality of direct Class I and Class II restorations made of microhybrid composite and applied using two polymerisation protocols, using two margin evaluation criteria.
METHODS: A total of 50 patients (mean age: 33 years) received 100 direct Class I or Class II restorations in premolars or molars. Three calibrated operators made the restorations. After conditioning the tooth with 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, restorations were made incrementally using microhybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram). Each layer was polymerised using a polymerisation device operated either at regular mode (600-650 mW/cm(2) for 20s) (RM) or high-power (1200-1300 mW/cm(2) for 10s) mode (HPM). Two independent calibrated operators evaluated the restorations 1 week after restoration placement (baseline), at 6 months and thereafter annually up to 5 years using modified USPHS and SQUACE criteria. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Alfa scores (USPHS) for marginal adaptation (86% and 88% for RM and HPM, respectively) and marginal discoloration (88% and 88%, for RM and HPM, respectively) did not show significant differences between the two-polymerisation protocols (p>0.05). Alfa scores (SQUACE) for marginal adaptation (88% and 88% for RM and HPM, respectively) and marginal discoloration (94% and 94%, for RM and HPM, respectively) were also not significantly different at 5th year (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Regular and high-power polymerisation protocols had no influence on the marginal quality of the microhybrid composite tested up to 5 years. Both modified USPHS and SQUACE criteria confirmed that regardless of the polymerisation mode, marginal quality of the restorations deteriorated compared to baseline.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
10 citations in Web of Science®
13 citations in Scopus®
9 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 05 Feb 2014
0 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:2013
Deposited On:05 Feb 2014 09:51
Last Modified:24 Sep 2019 20:00
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0300-5712
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.02.009
PubMed ID:23454329

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members