Effects of Different Application Techniques on Nanohybrid Composite Restorations Clinical Success
Rasha Al-Sheikh1, *
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2019
First Page: 228
Last Page: 235
Publisher Id: TODENTJ-13-228
Article History:Received Date: 07/04/2019
Revision Received Date: 27/06/2019
Acceptance Date: 01/07/2019
Electronic publication date: 31/07/2019
Collection year: 2019
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Dental composites have been used as a restorative material for a long time. However, they have their limitations.
This study evaluated the effects of placement techniques on the clinical performance of class I composite resin restorations.
A total of 40 patients with split-mouth design participated in this study. Each patient had two fillings according to the placement technique (either bulk or incremental packing) of the composite resin restorations. Group (A): was packed by Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill composite resin and Group (B): was incrementally packed with Tetric EvoCeram composite resin. Restorations of the teeth were evaluated on the same day, at one week, 3 months and 6 months to determine any signs of failure according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.
At different follow-up periods, the results showed no significant differences for retention, marginal integrity, surface stain, gingival bleeding, and secondary caries; however, there were significant differences in color match, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity.
This study concluded that the nanohybrid resin composites demonstrated excellent clinical performance for 6 months follow up period.