Composite Restoration, Composites Resins
Conditions
Keywords
Clinical, Biomimetic, Composite, Class I
Brief summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate several bilayer biomimetic composite resin techniques in class I cavities over the course of 18 months in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial.
Detailed description
To make resin composite restorations more resistant to cracking in cavities that are under a lot of stress, some have proposed using fiber reinforcement. This proposal is supported by numerous prior investigations that have demonstrated the efficacy of these repairs. By adjusting their orientation, fibers can control the pressures brought on by polymerization shrinkage. Therefore, marginal microleakage has been reduced in comparison to conventional resin composites. One way the material's fibers improve its structural characteristics is by preventing cracks from propagating. Composites are ideal for direct restorations of large cavities in healthy teeth and teeth that have had endodontic treatment because the fiber structure improves their mechanical properties. Moreover, in 2021, a comprehensive analysis of research found that resin composite restorations reinforced with fibers had better adaptability and higher fracture resistance than the standard ones.
Interventions
OTHERshort fiber reinforced composite , long fiber reinforced composite, light cure glass, flowable composite
All patients received four various bilayer biomimetic restorations in four groups (n = 40) as follows: Group I: short fiber reinforced composite (everX Posterior); ); Group II: long fiber reinforced composite (Ribbond Inc., USA); Group III: glass ionomer restorative materials (Riva SDI); and Group IV: flowable composite (G-aenial universal).
Sponsors
Tanta University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
35 Years to 45 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Proper oral hygiene * Availability for follow-up periods
Exclusion criteria
* Endodontically treated or non-vital teeth * Parafunctional habits such as tooth clenching or grinding
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The primary outcomes are: surface luster, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, fracture, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. | 18 months | Clinical assessment was carried out according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) by two calibrated evaluators at baseline and at 6, 9, 12, and 18 months. All of the restorations were ranked according to how well they met the criteria: clinically excellent or very satisfactory, clinically satisfactory, clinically satisfactory, or clinically inadequate. Clinical success was defined as a score of 1, 2, or 3, and failure was indicated by scores of 4 or 5. A powerful light source was used to conduct the visual inspection of the parameters. A magnifying dental loupe was utilized for this purpose. The Friedman test was conducted to evaluate intragroup comparisons of the same restoration outcomes through different follow-up periods. The Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized to assess intergroup comparisons between different restorations during the same follow-up period. |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed