Clinical Evaluation of Resin-Based Composites in Posterior Restorations: A 3-Year Study
dc.contributor.author | Celik, Cigdem | |
dc.contributor.author | Arhun, Neslihan | |
dc.contributor.author | Yamanel, Kivanc | |
dc.contributor.pubmedID | 25115230 | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-12-18T14:03:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-12-18T14:03:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanohybrid and a microhybrid composite in class I and II restorations after 3 years. Subjects and Methods: A total of 82 class I and class II restorations were performed in 31 patients (10 males and 21 females) using Grandio and QuiXfil with self-etch adhesives (Futurabond and Xeno III). The restorations were clinically evaluated by 2 operators 1 week after placement (baseline) and at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the 3-year follow-up, 62 class I and class II cavities were reevaluated in 23 patients (7 males and 16 females). Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's. 2 and Fisher's exact tests (p < 0.05). Results: At the 6-month follow-up, all restorations received Alfa scores with respect to each evaluation criterion. At the 1-year follow-up, 2 QuiXfil restorations had to be replaced and Grandio restorations started to deteriorate in terms of marginal adaptation. At the end of 2 years, 9 Grandio restorations showed significant deterioration of the surface properties, demonstrating Bravo scores. At the end of 3 years, no significant differences were observed regarding color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, marginal discoloration, and anatomic form loss between the evaluated materials in 25 class I and 37 class II restorations. At the 3-year follow-up, Grandio restorations had 21% Bravo scores and showed significant deterioration of the surface properties, which were still clinically acceptable according to USPHS criteria. Three QuiXfil and 1 Grandio restorations were replaced because of secondary caries and loss of retention. Conclusions: Both the nanohybrid (Grandio) and the microhybrid (QuiXfil) composites were clinically functional after 3 years. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel | en_US |
dc.identifier.endpage | 459 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1011-7571 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 5 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-84927623498 | en_US |
dc.identifier.startpage | 453 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/364874 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11727/4476 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 23 | en_US |
dc.identifier.wos | 000341963000010 | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.relation.isversionof | 10.1159/000364874 | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE | en_US |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi | en_US |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en_US |
dc.subject | Resin composite | en_US |
dc.subject | United States Public Health Service criteria | en_US |
dc.subject | Clinical follow-up | en_US |
dc.subject | Posterior restoration | en_US |
dc.title | Clinical Evaluation of Resin-Based Composites in Posterior Restorations: A 3-Year Study | en_US |
dc.type | article | en_US |