ABSTRACT
Objective: To assess the six-month clinical outcome of restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) with two composite resins: Bulk-Fill and nanohybrid resin. Materials and methods: Fifty-one patients, with three NCCLs each, were randomly allocated into three restoration groups: Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TB); Filtek Bulk-Fill (FB); y Filtek Z350XT (Z350). Adhesive techniques and restorative procedures were performed according to the manufacturers' instructions for the different materials. A 4mm increment was applied in TB and FB, and increments of ≤2mm depth were applied in Z350. Restorations were assessed by two calibrated examiners at baseline and at six months according to the FDI World Dental Federation guidelines (1: excellent, 2: acceptable, 3: sufficient, 4: unsatisfactory, 5: unacceptable) in Marginal Staining (MS), Fracture-Retention (FR), Marginal Adaptation (MA), Postoperative Sensitivity (S) and Caries (C). Wilcoxon test was used for the comparison between baseline and 6 months, and Kruskal-Wallis for the comparison of the three groups at six months (95% significance). Results: Forty-six patients with a total of 138 restorations attended a check-up at six months and were evaluated with excellent clinical outcome. In MS, 91.2% for Z350 and 97.8% for FB and TB; in FR, 97.8% for Z350 and 100% for FB and TB; in MA, 95.6% for Z350, 97.8% for FB and 100% for TN; in S, 95.6% for all three groups; and 100% for C. No statistically significant differences were found between the three groups nor in the comparison between the baseline and 6 months (p>0.05) Conclusion: No significant differences are observed between the three groups of resins in the parameters of MS, MA, S, FR and C regarding clinical outcome at six months.
Objetivo: Evaluar el comportamiento clínico a 6 meses en restauraciones de lesiones cervicales no cariosas (LCNC) con dos resinas compuestas Bulk-Fill y una resina nanohíbrida. Materiales y métodos: En 51 pacientes se restauraron 3 LCNC distribuidas aleatoriamente en 3 grupos, TB: Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, FB: Filtek Bulk-Fill y Z350: Filtek Z350XT. Las técnicas adhesivas y procedimientos restauradores fueron realizados según las instrucciones de los fabricantes para los diferentes materiales. En TB y FB se aplicó un incremento de 4mm y en Z350 se aplicó incrementos ≤2mm de profundidad. Dos operadores calibrados evaluaron las restauraciones al baseline y 6 meses mediante los criterios clínicos FDI (1: excelente, 2: aceptable, 3: suficiente, 4: insatisfactorio, 5: inaceptable) en Tinción Marginal (TM), Fractura-Retención (FR), Adaptación Marginal (AM), Sensibilidad Postoperatoria (S) y Caries (C). Se utilizó Wilcoxon para la comparación entre baseline 6 meses y Kruskal-Wallis para la comparación de los 3 grupos a 6 meses (significancia de 95%). Resultados: A los 6 meses asistieron 46 pacientes con un total de 138 restauraciones siendo evaluados con comportamiento clínico excelente; en TM 91,2% para Z350 y 97,8% para FB y TB; en FR, Z350 presentó 97,8% y en FB y TB el 100%; en AM, 95,6% para Z350, 97,8% para FB y 100% para TN; en S presentó 95,6% para los tres grupos; en C se presentó el 100%. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los 3 grupos y en la comparación de baseline - 6 meses (p>0.05). Conclusión: No existen diferencias significativas en el comportamiento clínico a 6 meses entre los 3 grupos de resinas en los parámetros TM, AM, S, FR Y C.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Tooth Demineralization/therapy , Composite Resins/chemistry , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Chile , Double-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Tooth Cervix , Resin Cements/chemistry , Dental MaterialsABSTRACT
Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanical performance and the fracture behavior of endocrown restorations prepared using distinct restorative materials. A total of 42 sound molars with similar crown size and shape were cut at 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction and endodontically treated. They were categorized according to the restorative material used to fabricate endocrown restorations (n=7), namely, conventional composite (Filtek™ Z350 XT), bulk fill composite (Filtek™ Bulk Fill), conventional composite modeled using resin adhesives (SBMP: Scotchbond™ Multipurpose Adhesive; or SBU: Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive), and IPS e.max lithium disilicate (Ivoclar Vivadent; positive control). Unprepared sound teeth were used as negative control. All endocrowns were bonded using a self-adhesive cement (Rely-X™ U200). The teeth were submitted to fatigue (Byocycle) and fracture (EMIC DL500) testing. Load-to-fracture (in N) and work-of-fracture (Wf, in J/m2) values were analyzed by ANOVA (p < 0.05). The endocrowns did not fracture or de-bond upon fatigue, showing similar load-to-fracture and work-of-fracture values, regardless of the restorative material (p > 0.05). The endocrowns fabricated by combining Z350 and SBMP had the least harsh fractures, in contrast to endocrowns prepared using Z350 only, which exhibited an equilibrium between repairable and irrepairable fractures. The e.max endocrowns exhibited more aggressive failures (root fracture) than other groups, resulting in higher rates of irrepairable fractures. In conclusion, dental practitioners may satisfactorily restore severely damaged nonvital teeth using the endocrown technique. Composite endocrowns prepared using resin adhesive as modeler liquid or using bulk fill material may result in less aggressive failures, thus providing a new material perspective for endocrown restorations.