Dental Caries Extending Into Dentin
Conditions
Keywords
Composite resin, Clinical Evaluation, Polyethylene Fiber, First Permanent Molars, Extensive carious
Brief summary
The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performances of composite resin restorations with/without the polyethylene fiber to the first permanent molar teeth with extensively carious pediatric patients. A total of 75 restorations with (FC; n=38)or without (C; n=37) fiber were placed in the first permanent molar teeth. Restorations were evaluated at baseline-6-12-18 months according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Chi-Square and Cochran's Q (p\<0.05).
Detailed description
Fiber reinforced composite restorations developed in recent years have been presented to improve the negative properties of composite resin systems applied by the traditional method thanks to the fact that the fibers act as a crack stopper, reduce polymerization shrinkage by decreasing the the mass of composite resin material between the remaining dentin structure and the fiber. Many authors having conducted tremendous experience in this field of research have reported that the polyethylene fiber is an innovative approach because it not only increases the flexural strength but also improves fracture toughness. Its woven fiber orientation provides the stresses to be dispersed throughout the restoration, and therefore reinforces the restoration and the remaining tooth structure in multiple directions.
Interventions
DEVICEGenial Posterior Composite with Polyethylene Fiber
Placing restorations,Genial Posterior Composite with Polyethylene Fiber, after bonding procedures, remaining tooth composite resin walls were created and cured for 20 s. Prepared ribbond fiber pieces, 2-mm-wide approximately 12mm-long, (Ribbond Thinner, Higher, Modulus, Ribbond Inc,Seattle) were wetted with an unfilled resin for 2 minutes at a non-light environment. The inner surfaces of the prepared class I cavity were lined with flowable resin. After removing the excess resin, pre-wetted polyethylene fiber was condensed circumferentially and embedded with a hand instrument into the bed of unpolymerized flowable composite and then polymerized for 20 seconds with Light Emitting Diodes. After curing for 20 s, composite resin was applied to the rest of the cavity incrementally, each increment was cured for 20 seconds. Finally, the restoration was shaped with finishing diamonds and silicon instruments.
DEVICEGenial Posterior Composite
Placing Genial Posterior Composite, the enamel and dentin were conditioned with bonding procedure using an applicator, left undisturbed for five to 10 seconds, and then dried thoroughly for five seconds with oil-free air under air pressure, Genial Direct Posterior resin was applied with the incremental technique (2 mm thick layers) and light-cured for 20 seconds. Finally, the restoration was shaped with finishing diamonds and silicon instruments
Sponsors
Kafkas University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Intervention model description
Parallel Assignment
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
9 Years to 14 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* no hypoplasia or any tissue abnormality in the teeth, * deep dentin caries with three tubercle loss in the teeth, need of three surface restorations with coverage of at least two adjacent cusps. * no evidence for pulpal complications * in occlusion
Exclusion criteria
* partly erupted teeth; -.absence of adjacent and antagonist teeth * poor periodontal status; * adverse medical history; * potential behavioral problems.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal adaptation | From baseline to 18 months the change of restorations was evaluated | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria which was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed. A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C and D score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1: Harmonious outline Alpha 2: Marginal gap with discoloration (removable) |
| marginal discoloration | From baseline to 18 months the change of restorations was evaluated | Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction |
| retention rate | From baseline to 18 months the change of restorations was evaluated | Alpha 1:Clinically excellent Alpha 2: Clinically good with slight deviations from ideal performance, correction possible without damage of tooth or restoration Bravo: Clinically sufficient with few defects, corrections or repair of the restoration possible Charlie: Restoration is partially missed Delta: Restoration is totally missed |
| anatomic form | From baseline to 18 months the change of restorations was evaluated | Alpha 1: Continuous with existing anatomical form Alpha 2: Slightly discontinuous due to some chipping on the proximal ridge Bravo: Discontinuous with existing anatomical form due to material loss but proximal contact still present Charlie: Proximal contact is lost with ridge fracture. |
| color change | From baseline to 18 months the change of restorations was evaluated | Alpha: The restoration matches the adjacent tooth structure in color and translucency. Bravo: Light mismatch in color, shade or translucency between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The mismatch in color and translucency is outside the acceptable range of tooth color and translucency Alpha: The restoration matches the adjacent tooth structure in color and translucency. Bravo: Light mismatch in color, shade or translucency between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The mismatch in color and translucency is outside the acceptable range of tooth color and translucency |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed