Dataset Information

Flowable Bulk-Fill Materials Compared to Nano Ceramic Composites for Class I Cavities Restorations in Primary Molars: A Two-Year Prospective Case-Control Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The aim of this split-mouth study is to compare the results of 24 months' clinical performance of primary molar Class I restorations with a nano-ceramic composite, Ceram•X mono (Dentsply) with a flowable bulk-fill material regular viscosity, SDR (Dentsply). METHODS:Following the ethical approval, 27 patients with at least two class I cavities in primary molars were included in the study. A total number of 54 restorations were conducted (n = 27 for Ceram X and n = 27 for SDR). Restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 18, and 24 months, according to the modified Ryge criteria. The cavosurface marginal discoloration and color match were evaluated visually after air-drying the tooth and after removing the plaque (if necessary). RESULTS:At 24 months' follow-up, 54 restorations showed similar clinical performance. The statistical analysis did not reveal any statistical significance in the values between the groups in 7 out of 7 modified Ryge criteria. However, two restorations in both groups received Bravo ratings in the cavosurface marginal discoloration scoring. No side effects were reported by the participants of the study. CONCLUSION:Restorations with both materials (Ceram•X mono and SDR) have provided almost identical results.

SUBMITTER: Sarapultseva M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6960826 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Flowable Bulk-Fill Materials Compared to Nano Ceramic Composites for Class I Cavities Restorations in Primary Molars: A Two-Year Prospective Case-Control Study.

Sarapultseva Maria M Sarapultsev Alexey A

Dentistry journal 20190925 4

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of this split-mouth study is to compare the results of 24 months' clinical performance of primary molar Class I restorations with a nano-ceramic composite, <i>Ceram•X mono</i> (Dentsply) with a flowable bulk-fill material regular viscosity, <i>SDR</i> (Dentsply).<h4>Methods</h4>Following the ethical approval, 27 patients with at least two class I cavities in primary molars were included in the study. A total number of 54 restorations were conducted (n = 27 for Ceram X ...[more]

PMID: 31557829

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose. This study tested the null hypothesis that different classes of direct restorative dental materials: silorane-based resin, low-shrinkage and conventional (non-flowable and flowable) resin-based composite (RBC) do not differ from each other with regard to polymerization shrinkage, depth of cure or microhardness. Methods. 140 RBC samples were fabricated and tested by one calibrated operator. Polymerization shrinkage was measured using a gas pycnometer both before and immediately after curing with 36 J/cm(2) light energy density. Depth of cure was determined, using a penetrometer and the Knoop microhardness was tested from the top surface to a depth of 5 mm. Results. Considering polymerization shrinkage, the authors found significant differences (p < 0.05) between different materials: non-flowable RBCs showed lower values compared to flowable RBCs, with the silorane-based resin presenting the smallest shrinkage. The low shrinkage flowable composite performed similarly to non-flowable with significant statistical differences compared to the two other flowable RBCs. Regarding to depth of cure, low-shrinkage flowable RBC, were most effective compared to other groups. Microhardness was generally higher for the non-flowable vs. flowable RBCs (p < 0.05). However, the values for low-shrinkage flowable did not differ significantly from those of non-flowable, but were significantly higher than those of the other flowable RBCs. Clinical Significance. RBCs have undergone many modifications as they have evolved and represent the most relevant restorative materials in today's dental practice. This study of low-shrinkage RBCs, conventional RBCs (non-flowable and flowable) and silorane-based composite-by in vitro evaluation of volumetric shrinkage, depth of cure and microhardness-reveals that although filler content is an important determinant of polymerization shrinkage, it is not the only variable that affects properties of materials that were tested in this study.

Dataset Information

Flowable Bulk-Fill Materials Compared to Nano Ceramic Composites for Class I Cavities Restorations in Primary Molars: A Two-Year Prospective Case-Control Study.

Publications

Flowable Bulk-Fill Materials Compared to Nano Ceramic Composites for Class I Cavities Restorations in Primary Molars: A Two-Year Prospective Case-Control Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets