Dental defective restoration, restoration failed
Conditions
Interventions
Accession strategy that each restoration was subjected was defined by randomization: for each experimental unit, a draw was done to determine which of the four restoration treatments would be submitte
G2 (test)-surface treatment with phosphoric acid 37% P90 ® adhesive system + 3 m + 3 m/ESPE Filtek P90 ®/ESPE
G3 (test)-surface treatment by sandblasting with aluminium oxide + P90 ® 3 m/ESPE adhesive system + Filtek P90 ® 3 m/ESPE. G4 (control 2)-surface treatment with self etch adhesive system Adper SE Plus
Procedure/surgery
Sponsors
Universidade Estadual de MOntes Claros
Daniela Popoff
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to 60 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Patients over 18 years of age; patients had posterior teeth with indication of class I on the occlusal face; who agreed to participate in all stages of research; patients with minimal tooth loss.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Patients not able to dental treatment because of its medical history; patients with xerostomia or were taking medication that significantly reduce salivary flow; patients with types of parafunction.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The integrity of the tooth and restoration after a year of evaluation was the primary outcome (1), being verified 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 (3).;In the baseline identified that the prevalence of the parameter "clinically" for the integrity of the tooth and restoration criteria, was 97% for Group 1, 100% for Group 2, 93% for the Group 3 and 97% for the Group 4. On the evaluation of the year 1 percent values remained the same between the two groups, demonstrating that all group were clinically excellent in keeping the integrity. | — |
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 (3).;In the baseline identified that the prevalence of the parameter "clinically" for secondary caries criterion, was 100% for all groups, keeping this result after 1 year. On postoperative hypersensitivity all groups presented result clinically excellent at baseline and after one year. Staining already marginal there was a fall in the prevalence of the parameter "excelent clinically" for Group 3 (8%) and 4 (4%) after 1 year. | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactDaniela Popoff
Universidade Estadual de MOntes Claros
Outcome results
None listed