30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite

Objective To evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth in a randomised trial over 30 months. Methods Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with a nanofill (Filtek Z350, 3M E...

ver descrição completa

Na minha lista:
Detalhes bibliográficos
Principais autores: Andrade, Ana Karina Maciel de, Duarte, Rosângela Marques, Silva, Fábia Danielle Sales Cunha Medeiros e, Batista, André Ulisses Dantas, Lima, Kenio Costa de, Pontual, Maria Luíza dos Anjos, Montes, Marcos Antonio Japiassú Resende
Formato: article
Idioma:eng
Publicado em:
Assuntos:
Nanofill composite
Nanohybrid composite
Clinical evaluation
Endereço do item:https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/22958
Tags: Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
Descrição
Resumo:Objective To evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth in a randomised trial over 30 months. Methods Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with a nanofill (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE), a nanohybrid (Esthet-X, Dentsply); Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) was used as a control. After 30 months, the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the US Public Health Service (USPHS) modified criteria. The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis, at a level of significance of 5%. Results There were significant differences in the roughness of Filtek Z250 (p = 0.008) and Filtek Z350 (p < 0.001) when the four time periods (baseline, 6 months, 12 months and 30 months) were compared. There were significant differences in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 (p = 0.001), Filtek Z350 (p < 0.001) and Esthet-X (p = 0.011). Except for one of each composite restoration, all the modifications ranged from Alpha to Bravo. There were significant differences in the surface roughness (p = 0.005) when the three composites were compared after 30 months. Conclusions The materials investigated showed acceptable clinical performance after 30 months. Long-term re-evaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites (CEP: #1252).

Registros relacionados