Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, Egypt.
Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024 May;36(5):723-736. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13193. Epub 2024 Jan 4.
This randomized clinical trial evaluated and compared the 2-year clinical performance of two ion-releasing bulk-fill composites (Cention N and Surefil One) with that of a conventional bulk-fill resin composite (Powerfil) in Class I and II cavities.
Thirty-two patients, each with 3 Class I and/or Class II cavities under occlusion, were enrolled in this trial. A total of 96 restorations were placed, 32 for each material, as follows: a self-adhesive composite; Surefil-one, alkasite; Cention N, and a bulk-fill resin composite; Powerfil. The restorations were placed by a single operator. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (1-week), 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years by two independent examiners using the FDI criteria. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman Tests. Multiple comparisons between groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon-rank tests. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.
Twenty-seven patients with a total of 81 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 2-years with 84.35% recall rates. Clinical success rates were 100%, 100%, and 96.3% for Powerfil, Surefil-one, and Cention N, respectively. Cention N showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) decreased marginal integrity in comparison with resin composite at the 2-year evaluation. No recurrent decay was detected in any restoration.
Both ion-releasing bulk-fill composites provided acceptable clinical performance similar to bulk-fill composite in Class I and II restorations over a 2-year period.
The results of this trial suggests that there is a promising evidence supporting the use of ion-releasing composites.
本随机临床试验评估并比较了两种释放离子的块状填充复合材料（Cention N 和 Surefil One）与传统块状填充树脂复合材料（Powerfil）在 I 类和 II 类窝洞中的 2 年临床性能。
本试验纳入了 32 名患者，每位患者的咬合面有 3 个 I 类和/或 II 类窝洞。共放置了 96 个修复体，每种材料各 32 个，分别为：自粘接复合材料；Surefil-one，alkasite；Cention N 和块状填充树脂复合材料；Powerfil。由一位操作者进行修复体的放置。通过两位独立的检查者使用 FDI 标准在基线（1 周）、6 个月、1 年和 2 年时进行临床评估。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Friedman 检验对组间和组内比较进行分析。使用 Mann-Whitney 和 Wilcoxon-rank 检验对组间的多重比较进行分析。显著性水平设定为 α=0.05。
27 名患者共 81 个修复体在 2 年结束时进行了评估，召回率为 84.35%。Powerfil、Surefil-one 和 Cention N 的临床成功率分别为 100%、100%和 96.3%。与树脂复合材料相比，Cention N 在 2 年评估时的边缘完整性有统计学意义上的降低（p<0.05）。任何修复体均未发现继发龋。
两种释放离子的块状填充复合材料在 I 类和 II 类修复体中提供了可接受的临床性能，与块状填充复合材料相似，为期 2 年。
该试验结果表明，有令人鼓舞的证据支持使用释放离子的复合材料。
