Rocha Gomes Torres Carlos, Rêgo Heleine Maria Chagas, Perote Letícia C C Costa, Santos Luciana F Thives F, Kamozaki Maria Beatriz Beber, Gutierrez Natália Cortez, Di Nicoló Rebeca, Borges Alessandra Bühler
Department of Restorative Dentistry, São José dos Campos School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, Av. Eng. Francisco José Longo, 777 São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, São José dos Campos School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, Av. Eng. Francisco José Longo, 777 São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
J Dent. 2014 Jul;42(7):793-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.009. Epub 2014 Apr 25.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of class II restorations made with a composite resin with two different viscosities.
47 patients received two class II restorations (n=94), one made with GrandioSO (conventional viscosity - CV), and the other with GrandioSO Heavy Flow (flowable viscosity - FV), subjecting both materials to the same clinical conditions. The self-etching adhesive Futurabond M was used for all restorations. The composites were inserted using the incremental technique. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria according to the periods: baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after restorative procedures.
After 24 months, 40 patients attended the recall and 78 restorations were evaluated. In all periods, no secondary caries was observed. After 6 months, there were slightly overall changes of scores for most parameters. After 24 months, the higher number of changes from score Alfa to Bravo was observed for marginal discolouration (32.5% - CV and 39.5% - FV) and colour match (15% - CV and 31.6% - FV), followed by proximal contact (25% - CV and 23.7% - FV) and marginal adaptation (20% - CV and 21.1% - FV). For wear, surface texture and postoperative sensitivity the changes were very small. Just two restorations were lost during the 24-month follow up. Less than 5% of all restorations showed postoperative sensitivity. Chi-square test showed no significant differences between the two materials for all parameters analysed.
After 2 years of clinical service, no significant differences were observed between GrandioSO conventional and GrandioSO Heavy Flow for the parameters analysed. Both materials provided acceptable clinical behaviour in class II restorations.
This study presents the possibility of using a flowable composite with high filler content, for performing class II restorations.
本研究旨在评估用两种不同黏度的复合树脂制作的II类修复体的2年临床性能。
47例患者接受了两个II类修复体（n = 94），一个用GrandioSO（常规黏度 - CV）制作，另一个用GrandioSO Heavy Flow（可流动黏度 - FV）制作，使两种材料处于相同的临床条件下。所有修复体均使用自酸蚀黏结剂Futurabond M。复合材料采用分层充填技术置入。根据修复程序后的基线、6个月、1年和2年等时间段，使用改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准对修复体进行评估。
24个月后，40例患者前来复诊，对78个修复体进行了评估。在所有时间段均未观察到继发龋。6个月后，大多数参数的评分总体变化轻微。24个月后，边缘变色（CV为32.5%，FV为39.5%）和颜色匹配（CV为15%，FV为31.6%）从Alfa评分变为Bravo评分的数量较多，其次是邻面接触（CV为25%，FV为23.7%）和边缘适合性（CV为20%，FV为21.1%）。对于磨损、表面质地和术后敏感性，变化非常小。在24个月的随访期间仅丢失了两个修复体。所有修复体中术后敏感性的发生率低于5%。卡方检验显示，对于所有分析的参数，两种材料之间无显著差异。
经过2年的临床使用，对于所分析的参数，GrandioSO常规型和GrandioSO Heavy Flow之间未观察到显著差异。两种材料在II类修复体中均表现出可接受的临床性能。
本研究提出了使用高填料含量的可流动复合材料进行II类修复的可能性。
