Effects of Different Application Techniques on Nanohybrid Composite Restorations Clinical Success



Rasha Al-Sheikh1, *
1 Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 455
Abstract HTML Views: 346
PDF Downloads: 183
ePub Downloads: 162
Total Views/Downloads: 1146
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 237
Abstract HTML Views: 184
PDF Downloads: 125
ePub Downloads: 106
Total Views/Downloads: 652



© 2019 Rasha Al-Sheikh.

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.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Restorative Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O.Box 1982. Dammam 31441. Saudi Arabia; Tel: +966 506864814;
E-mails: ralsheikh@iau.edu.sa, ralsheik@gmail.com


Abstract

Introduction:

Dental composites have been used as a restorative material for a long time. However, they have their limitations.

Aims:

This study evaluated the effects of placement techniques on the clinical performance of class I composite resin restorations.

Methods:

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.

Results:

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.

Conclusion:

This study concluded that the nanohybrid resin composites demonstrated excellent clinical performance for 6 months follow up period.

Keywords: Clinical evaluation, Nanohybrid resin composite, Placement technique, Restorative material, Split-mouth design, Gingival bleeding.