ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites (BFRCs) in Class ÓÓ restorations after 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials) guidelines. Forty patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient received three compound Class ÓÓ restorations. One dual-cure (Fill-Up; Coltene Waledent AG) and two light-cure (QuiXfil; Dentsply, and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill; Ivoclar Vivadent) BFRCs were used for 120 Class ÓÓ restorations. A universal adhesive (ONE COAT 7 UNIVERSAL; Coltene Waledent AG) was used with all restorations. Restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and finally after 24 months using the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparison between BFRCs groups at baseline and at each recall period, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparing different follow-up times of each BFRC to baseline. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: All BFRCs restorations showed only minor changes and revealed no statistically significant differences between their clinical performance for all evaluated parameters at all recall periods; also, there was no statistically significant difference between all recall periods and baseline for all evaluated parameters. CONCLUSION: The two-year clinical performance of dual-cure BFRC was comparable to light-cure BFRCs in Class ÓÓ restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dual- and light-cure BFRCs showed excellent clinical performance in Class ÓÓ restorations after a 2-year clinical follow-up.
Subject(s)
Dental Caries , Dental Restoration, Permanent , Humans , Composite Resins , Double-Blind MethodABSTRACT
This study aimed to assess bioglass sintering to a zirconia core on surface properties and bonding strength to resin cement. Zirconia specimens were divided into four groups: G I: sintered; G II: bioglass modified zirconia (a bioglass slurry was sintered with zirconia at 1550 °C); G III: sandblasted using 50 µm Al2O3 particles; and G IV: Z-prime plus application. Surface morphology and chemical analysis were studied using a scanning electron microscope and energy-dispersive spectroscopy. Surface roughness was evaluated using a profilometer. Surface hardness was measured using an indentation tester. For the microshear bond strength test, resin cement cylinders were bonded to a zirconia surface. Half of the specimens were tested after 24 h; the other half were thermocycled (5-55 °C) for 1000 cycles. A shearing load was applied at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min on a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with ANOVA using SPSS software at (p < 0.05). Results: tThe mean surface roughness of G II was significantly higher than G I and G III. The microhardness of G II was significantly lower than all groups. For bond strength, there was no significant difference between groups II, III, and IV after thermocycling. Conclusions: Bioactive glass can increase the bond strength of zirconia to resin cement, and is comparable to sandblasting and Z-prime bonding agents.