Comparative clinical evaluation between self‐adhesive and conventional bulk‐fill composites in class II cavities: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical study

Author:

Ellithy Mohamed S.1ORCID,Abdelrahman Mohamed H.1,Afifi Rania R.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry Alexandria University Alexandria Egypt

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis randomized controlled clinical trial compared the clinical efficacy of self‐adhesive bulk‐fill Surefil One with a traditional bulk‐fill composite in class II restorations.Materials and MethodsSixty‐four direct class II composite restorations were categorized into two groups. Group I, control group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Filtek One bulk‐fill composite with Scotchbond Universal (SBU) adhesive in self‐etch mode, Group II, test group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Surefil One self‐adhesive bulk‐fill composite. The study involved a follow‐up period of 1 year, during which restorations were assessed at baseline (BL), 6 months, and 12 months using Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Data analysis was performed using nonparametric tests. A comparison of restoration characteristics was performed utilizing the chi‐square test (X2). The significance level was set at 0.05.ResultsFiltek One and Surefil One bulk‐fill composites revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores over 12‐month recalls. Thirty‐two patients (64 restorations) were available for all follow‐up visits; 100% of the restorations survived. For esthetic properties, Filtek One was far better than Surefil One at all time points. However, in terms of functional and biological properties, both restorations demonstrated comparable performances.ConclusionsFiltek One bulk‐fill restorations were superior in terms of surface luster, surface staining, color match, and translucency, but Surefil One restorations performed well and were similar to Filtek One restorations; however, additional advancements and research are needed to obtain better esthetics. Furthermore, longitudinal studies with extended follow‐up periods are needed to assess the clinical potential of both materials.Clinical SignificanceBoth Filtek One and Surefil One met the FDI criteria, with Filtek One demonstrating superior esthetic and functional qualities and similar performance regarding biological criteria. Both innovative restorative materials show potential for clinical use. Trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number; NCT06120868:07/11/2023.

Publisher

Wiley

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A Historical Perspective on Dental Composite Restorative Materials;Journal of Functional Biomaterials;2024-06-25

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3