Composite Resins, Posterior Teeth
Conditions
Keywords
Clinical, Placement techniques, Stamp, bulk-fill, Snowplow
Brief summary
The purpose of this 12-month randomized clinical investigation was to compare the clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations implanted in vital teeth using various placement techniques.
Detailed description
Because of their conservative nature, aesthetic qualities, and consistently improved mechanical performance and handling features, resin-based composites have become the restorative material of choice for posterior teeth. Nevertheless, significant obstacles influencing the stability of the marginal area, sensitivity following the procedure, and the durability and effectiveness of composite restorations in the long run are polymerization shrinkage and stress associated with shrinkage. To reduce polymerization stress and maximize adaptability to hollow walls, various placement procedures have been suggested. While older incremental layering methods sought to lessen the configuration factor (C-factor) and increase light penetration, more recent methods like the Stamp and Snowplow approaches sought to replicate the occlusal architecture and enhance marginal sealing. Conversely, bulk-fill techniques were first developed to streamline clinical processes by enabling the use of bigger composite layers with the promise of lower shrinkage stress. Despite a plethora of in vitro studies, there is a dearth of high-quality clinical data that compares these placement methods under controlled settings. Due to the fact that laboratory studies cannot completely replicate the oral environment, clinical trials continue to be the best way to assess the real-world efficacy of restorative procedures. Consequently, this randomized clinical trial set out to assess the clinical efficacy of posterior composite restorations placed in vital teeth utilizing four distinct procedures over the course of a year
Interventions
OTHERnanohybrid composite resin
Fifty patients received a total of 200 Class I composite restorations, which were placed using the same nanohybrid composite resin and randomly allocated into four groups (n = 50) according to placement technique: Group I-Stamp technique; Group II-Snowplow technique; Group III-Modified incremental "Pizza" technique; and Group IV-Bulk-fill technique
Sponsors
Tanta University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Good general and oral health * Vital posterior teeth with primary occlusal caries * Class I cavities with depth ranging from 3 to 4 mm
Exclusion criteria
* Non-vital or restored teeth * Parafunctional habits (e.g., bruxism)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The primary outcome was marginal adaptation | 24 months | Clinical evaluation of marginal adaptation was performed according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) by two calibrated evaluators at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months. All of the restorations were ranked according to how well they met the criteria: score 1 (clinically excellent), score 2 (clinically satisfactory), score 3 (clinically satisfactory), or scores 4 and 5 (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. Time Frame: 24 months |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed