Abstract
Objective This randomized double-blind clinical trial compared the performance of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel, after 1-year follow-up. Material and Methods Thirteen volunteers requiring at least two posterior composite restorations were selected. Twenty-nine cavities were performed, comprising 14 without bevel (butt joint) and 15 with bevel preparation of the enamel cavosurface angle. All cavities were restored with simplified adhesive system (Adper Single Bond) and composite resin (Filtek P60). A halogen light curing unit was used through the study. Restorations were polished immediately. Analysis was carried out at baseline, after 6 months and after 1 year by a calibrated evaluator (Kappa), according to the FDI criteria. Data were statistically analyzed by Mann-Whitney test (p<0.05). Results Beveled and non-beveled cavities performed similarly after 1 year follow-up, regarding to fractures and retention, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, surface luster and anatomic form. However, for surface and marginal staining, beveled cavities showed significantly better performance (p<0.05) than butt joint restorations. Conclusions It was concluded that the restorations were acceptable after 1 year, but restorations placed in cavities with marginal beveling showed less marginal staining than those placed in non-beveled cavities.
Highlights
Despite significant improvements in dental materials, especially regarding composite resin, some problems are still present, such as polymerization shrinkage and a long lasting sealing at the interface composite/dental structure, which could cause postoperative sensitivity, marginal staining and possible pulpal problems1,10
Bevel preparation in posterior composite restorations may be considered to improve the clinical performance of these restorations7
Class I or II were prepared in molars or premolars, with or without bevel preparation
Summary
Despite significant improvements in dental materials, especially regarding composite resin, some problems are still present, such as polymerization shrinkage and a long lasting sealing at the interface composite/dental structure, which could cause postoperative sensitivity, marginal staining and possible pulpal problems. %HYHO KDV EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK EHQH¿FLDO UHVXOWV for composite restorations in anterior teeth: transversal exposition of the enamel prisms, favoring acid etching, increase in the surface area to be conditioned, enhancing the adhesion, reduction in microleakage and increase of the resistance to fracture of restored teeth5 Based on these improvements, bevel preparation in posterior composite restorations may be considered to improve the clinical performance of these restorations. From the Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI), elaborated a new proposal to evaluate restorations that could provide better individualization of the data, improving standardization and making the data from different studies comparable The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate posterior composite restorations prepared with or without bevel, using the FDI criteria, after 1-year follow-up
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
