Clinical conditions of tooth restoration (due dental caries)
Conditions
Interventions
After identifying the patient who was in the research (having need for class I restoration), the interproximal radiograph (s) were performed and the day was scheduled to be performed.
For each unit
ex
Procedure/surgery
E06.323.428
Sponsors
Faculdades Integradas Pitágoras de Montes Claros
Universidade de Estadual de Montes Claros
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: over 18 years old; patients who had posterior teeth with active and / or cavitated caries lesions, requiring restoration with direct restorative material, but free of proximal caries according to interproximal radiographic examination; patients who already had class I restorations within score 5 (Clinically poor: International Dental Federation - IDF) on at least one of the following criteria: surface gloss; surface and margin staining; combination of color and translucency; anatomical form; fracture and retention of material; marginal adaptation; patient satisfaction; postoperative sensitivity; recurrence of caries.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: patients contraindicated for dental treatment due to their medical history; xerostomia patients or who were taking medication that significantly reduced salivary flow; patients with parafunctional habits of bruxism and teeth clenching and / or attrition; patients who did not have teeth antagonist to the element indicated for the restorative procedure; patients with endodontically treated teeth.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Dentin hypersensitivity and patient satisfaction were the primary outcome. The following criteria were evaluated: surface gloss; surface and margin staining; combination of color and translucency; anatomical form; fracture and retention of material; marginal adaptation; patient satisfaction; postoperative sensitivity; caries recurrence being verified by clinical examination and classified according to the IDF criteria (2) in: clinically excellent Very Good); clinically good (very good after polishing); clinically satisfactory (no adjustments required); clinically unsatisfactory (needs to be repair) and clinically poor or poor (needs replacements). To assess the primary hypersensitivity outcome, a visual analogue scale was used, as well as a cold sensitivity test. To assess patient satisfaction, an analog scale was also used. These events, evaluated in baseline.;At baseline there was a statistical difference between group 1 (87.9) and the other groups (p = 0.012) for the superficial staining criterion. There were statistical differences for anatomical shape (p <0.001), and the lowest values ??were for group 1 (72.7) and group 3 (95). | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| As a secondary outcome, the presence of secondary caries, postoperative hypersensitivity and marginal staining were evaluated after a year of assessment (1), being the parameters evaluated by clinical examination and classified according to the criteria of FDI (2) in: clinically excellent (very good); clinically good (very good after polishing); clinically satisfactory (no adjustments); clinically unsatisfactory (needs repair) and clinically poor or bad (replacements). The assessment was made by the difference in percentage of teeth classified as "clinically excellent" after one year | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactDaniela Popoff
Universidade de Estadual de Montes Claros
Outcome results
None listed