Abstract
Background: The aim of this split-mouth study is to compare the results of 24 months’ clinical performance of primary molar Class I restorations with a nano-ceramic composite, Ceram•X mono (Dentsply) with a flowable bulk-fill material regular viscosity, SDR (Dentsply). Methods: Following the ethical approval, 27 patients with at least two class I cavities in primary molars were included in the study. A total number of 54 restorations were conducted (n = 27 for Ceram X and n = 27 for SDR). Restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 18, and 24 months, according to the modified Ryge criteria. The cavosurface marginal discoloration and color match were evaluated visually after air-drying the tooth and after removing the plaque (if necessary). Results: At 24 months’ follow-up, 54 restorations showed similar clinical performance. The statistical analysis did not reveal any statistical significance in the values between the groups in 7 out of 7 modified Ryge criteria. However, two restorations in both groups received Bravo ratings in the cavosurface marginal discoloration scoring. No side effects were reported by the participants of the study. Conclusion: Restorations with both materials (Ceram•X mono and SDR) have provided almost identical results.
Highlights
There is a continuing demand for the use of time-saving restorative materials in pediatric dentistry [1,2,3]
Ethical approval # C-11-07-2016 (11 July 2016) was obtained from the Institute of Immunology and Physiology of the Ural Division of Russian Academy of Science, Ekaterinburg, and informed consent was obtained from all parents or legal guardians of subjects recruited for the study
According to the performed calculations via OpenEpi software (Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health, Version 3.01), 40 molars were required per restorative material group to detect and determine significant differences in outcomes at the 95% confidence level, with an alpha value = 0.05, and 80% power
Summary
There is a continuing demand for the use of time-saving restorative materials in pediatric dentistry [1,2,3]. According to the literature, conventional GIC and resin-modified GIC materials are unsuitable for long-term restorations in high-stress situations [2,3] This is why the bulk-fill resin-based composite (RBC). It was shown that bulk-fill RBCs had the lowest shrinkage stress and shrinkage-rate values in comparison to regular flowable and non-flowable nanohybrid and microhybrid methacrylate-based RBCs and a silorane-based microhybrid RBC and do not increase the intrapulpal temperature in primary teeth during the curing/setting [9,10,11,12] They were able to reduce cuspal deflection in standardized Class. SDR flow+ was approved by the manufacturer to be used in Class III and Class V restorations where a capping agent would not be used [15] The aim of this split-mouth study was to evaluate the performance of primary molar class I cavities restorations with bulk-fill RBC SDR (Dentsply) compared with a nanoceramic composite. The null hypothesis was that the above mentioned restorative techniques provide almost identical results
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
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