Does a Self-adhesive Flowable Resin Composite Perform Similarly to Highly Filled and Conventional Flowable Resin Composites in Occlusal Cavities? A 2-year Follow-up Study.


ÖZ F. D. , MERAL E., Gurgan S.

The journal of adhesive dentistry, vol.23, no.6, pp.497-503, 2021 (Peer-Reviewed Journal) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 23 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.3290/j.jad.b2288205
  • Journal Name: The journal of adhesive dentistry
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.497-503
  • Keywords: adhesive, dental materials, clinical research, resin composite, BONDING PERFORMANCE, FISSURE SEALANTS, CLINICAL-TRIAL, ENAMEL, SHRINKAGE, PIT

Abstract

© 2021. All Rights Reserved.Purpose: The aim of this clinical trial was to compare a self-adhesive flowable resin composite, a highly filled flowable resin composite used in combination with a universal adhesive applied in self-etch mode, and a conventional flowable resin composite used in combination with a universal adhesive applied using two different application modes in occlusal cavities. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight patients received 114 occlusal restorations. Cavities were divided into four groups: CS: a self-adhering flowable (Constic, DMG); GF: a highly filled flowable (G-ænial Universal Flo, GC) in combination with a universal adhesive applied in self-etch mode (G-Premio Bond, GC); TF-SE: a conventional flowable (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent) in combination with a universal adhesive (Tetric N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent) applied in self-etch mode; TF-ER: a conventional flowable (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent) in combination with a universal adhesive (Tetric N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent) applied in etch&rinse mode. Restorations were scored using modified USPHS criteria. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-squared tests. Results: At 24-month evaluations, none of the restorations were lost. The CS group showed significantly higher bravo scores for marginal adaptation than did the other experimental groups (p = 0.024). Significant changes were seen for CS and GF regarding marginal adaptation compared to baseline. Conclusion: Although the self-adhering flowable resin composite exhibited inferior marginal adaptation compared to the highly filled flowable and conventional flowable resin composites, the restored teeth demonstrated a clinically acceptable performance after 24 months.