ABSTRACT
Objective: The objective of this double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of two methacrylate-based flowable composite and ormocer-based flowable composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of adult patients. Material and Methods: 183 restorations were performed on NCCLs using the Futurabond U adhesive system, applied in the selective enamel etching mode in all cavities. After the adhesive application, the cavities were restored with one out of the three evaluated flowable composites (n = 61 per group): ormocer-based flowable composite (Admira Fusion Flow, ORM), low viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Flow, LV) and high viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Heavy Flow, HV). After 12 months of clinical performance, these restorations were evaluated according to FDI and USPHS criteria in the following items: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity and caries recurrence. Results: eight restorations were lost/fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (1 in the ORM and 7 in the HV group). The retention rates for 12- months (95% confidence interval) were 98.4% (91.3%-99.7%) for the ORM group, 100% (94.5%-100%) for the LV group and 88.5% (78.1%-94.3%) for the HV group, with no statistical difference identified between any pair of groups (p > 0.05). Five restorations presented small marginal adaptation defects at the 12-months evaluation recall, and all of them were considered clinically acceptable. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the universal adhesive associated to ormocer-based or methacrylate-based flowable composite were found to be promising after 12-month of clinical evaluation (AU)
Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo clínico duplo-cego randomizado foi comparar as taxas de retenção de um compósito fluido à base de Ormocer versus dois compósitos fluidos à base de metacrilato quando utilizados em lesões cervicais não cariosas (LCNCs) de pacientes adultos. Material e Métodos: 183 restaurações foram realizadas em LCNCs utilizando o sistema adesivo Futurabond U, aplicado no modo de condicionamento seletivo do esmalte em todas as cavidades. Após a aplicação do adesivo, as cavidades foram restauradas com um dos três compósitos fluidos avaliados (n = 61 por grupo): compósito fluido à base de ormocer (Admira Fusion Flow, ORM), compósito à base de metacrilato de baixa viscosidade (GrandioSO Flow, LV) e compósito à base de metacrilato de alta viscosidade (GrandioSO Heavy Flow, HV). Após 12 meses de desempenho clínico, essas restaurações foram avaliadas de acordo com os critérios FDI e USPHS nos seguintes itens: retenção / fratura, adaptação marginal, coloração marginal, sensibilidade pós-operatória e recorrência de cárie. Resultados: oito restaurações foram perdidas / fraturadas após 12 meses de avaliação clínica (1 no grupo ORM e 7 no grupo HV). As taxas de retenção por 12 meses (intervalo de confiança de 95%) foram 98,4% (91,3% -99,7%) para o grupo ORM, 100% (94,5% -100%) para o grupo LV e 88,5% (78,1% -94,3%) para o grupo HV, sem diferença estatística identificada entre nenhum par de grupos (p> 0,05). Cinco restaurações apresentaram pequenos defeitos de adaptação marginais no período de avaliação de 12 meses, e todas foram consideradas clinicamente aceitáveis. Conclusão: O desempenho clínico do adesivo universal associado ao compósito fluido à base de ormocer ou metacrilato mostrou-se promissor após 12 meses de avaliação clínica(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Clinical Trial , Dentin-Bonding Agents , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Dental Restoration, TemporaryABSTRACT
Abstract Dual-cured buildup composites and simplified light-cured adhesive systems are mixed with a chemical activator to prevent the incompatibility between them. Objective: To evaluate microshear bond strength (μSBS) and nanoleakage (NL) of three universal adhesives used under buildup composites using different curing modes, at baseline and after 6-months (6m). Methodology: Dentin specimens of 55 molars were assigned to: Clearfil Universal Bond[CFU], Prime&Bond Elect[PBE] and One Coat 7 Universal[OCU]. All-Bond Universal[ABU] and Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose[SMP] were used as controls. CFU, PBE, and OCU were: light-cured [LC], dual-cured using a self-curing activator [DC], and self-cured, using a self-curing activator and waiting for 20 min [SC]. Upon the application of the adhesive, transparent matrices were filled with a dual-cured buildup composite and light cured, then tested in mSBS. For NL, the specimens were submersed in ammoniacal silver nitrate and sectioned to observe under the SEM. Three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test were applied (α=0.05). Results: OCU/LC-PBE/LC resulted in higher mean μSBS than ABU/LC. For SMP/DC higher mean μSBS were obtained than for both CFU/DC and OCU/DC (baseline). No universal adhesive was significantly affected by curing mode or storage time. CFU, PBE, and OCU did not undergo significant changes in any curing mode (p>0.05). NL (baseline) PBE/LC resulted in higher %NL compared to ABU/LC. SMP/DC resulted in higher %NL than CFU/DC-OCU/DC. CFU/LC/DC resulted in lower %NL than CFU/SC. PBE/SC resulted in lower %NL than PBE/DC. OCU/LC/SC showed lower %NL than OCU/DC. OCU showed significant lower %NL than CFU and PBE. All CFU groups, as well as OCU/SC, resulted in increased %NL at 6m when compared with baseline. Conclusion: For universal adhesives used in etch-and-rinse mode, self-cured activator and different curing modes did not influence μSBS. However, some interactions were observed for NL, but this influence was material-specific.