Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade de Pernambuco, Av. Gov. Agamenon Magalhães, s/n; Santo Amaro, Recife, Pernambuco, 50.100-010, Brazil.
Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Cidade Universitária, s/n -, Castelo, Branco III, Paraíba, 58.051-085, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Nov;25(11):6219-6237. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03921-9. Epub 2021 Apr 6.
This study compared the clinical performance of two bulk-fill (BF) and one conventional resin composite in a population with a high caries incidence.
A total of 138 class I and II restorations were performed and randomly divided into three groups (n = 46) with equal allocation: Filtek BF (FBF; 3M ESPE), Tetric EvoCeram BF (TBF; Ivoclar Vivadent), and control Filtek Z250 (Z250; 3M ESPE). The evaluations were performed using the USPHS and FDI criteria at baseline and after 12 and 36 months by a previously calibrated evaluator. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests for paired data were used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05).
The DMFT index at baseline was 9.44, with 87% from the decayed component. After 36 months, 108 restorations (n = 36) were evaluated. Two failures were observed for TBF at marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, resulting in a survival rate of 94.44% and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.26%. No equivalence was observed between the criteria for surface roughness, marginal adaptation, and discoloration.
The 36-month clinical performance of high-viscosity BF resin composites was comparable to conventional incremental-filled resin composites. The FDI criteria better presented the restorations' clinical success. However, in the case of failure, both criteria provided the same result.
High-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites showed excellent performance after 36 months in a high caries incidence population. It can be considered a simplified alternative restoration method that reduces operating time and minimizes possible operator errors.
本研究比较了两种块状充填(BF)和一种传统树脂复合材料在龋病高发人群中的临床性能。
共进行了 138 例 I 类和 II 类修复,并随机分为三组(n = 46),每组分配相等:Filtek BF(FBF;3M ESPE)、Tetric EvoCeram BF(TBF;Ivoclar Vivadent)和对照 Filtek Z250(Z250;3M ESPE)。基线、12 个月和 36 个月时使用 USPHS 和 FDI 标准进行评估,由一名经过校准的评估员进行评估。采用 Friedman 和 Wilcoxon 检验进行配对数据的统计分析(α = 0.05)。
基线时 DMFT 指数为 9.44,其中 87%来自龋齿成分。36 个月后,评估了 108 个修复体(n = 36)。TBF 在边缘适应性和龋齿复发方面出现 2 例失败,生存率为 94.44%,年失败率(AFR)为 1.26%。表面粗糙度、边缘适应性和变色的标准之间没有等效性。
高粘度 BF 树脂复合材料在 36 个月的临床性能与传统增量填充树脂复合材料相当。FDI 标准更好地呈现了修复体的临床成功。然而,在失败的情况下,两种标准提供了相同的结果。
高粘度块状充填树脂复合材料在龋病高发人群中经过 36 个月后表现出优异的性能。它可以被认为是一种简化的替代修复方法,可以减少操作时间并最大限度地减少可能的操作错误。