Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the nine-year clinical performance of Class III composite restorations using two microhybrid anterior composite resins [Magic™-Vigodent/(F) and Z100™-3M ESPE/(Z)]. Material and Methods: The study was a randomized controlled trial, following the split mouth design. Seventy restorations were placed, thirty-five for each resin composite into 35 patients. The restorations were placed by one operator according to the manufacturers’ specifications. Two independent evaluators conducted the clinical evaluation using modified USPHS criteria. After nine-years, 56 restorations (28F-28Z) were evaluated. Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Exact Fisher and McNemar tests (p<0.05). Results: No postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries and loss of anatomic form was observed after nine-years for both composites. There were no significant differences between the two composites tested at baseline and after nine-years. Significant differences for Z and F restorations between baseline and nine-year with respect to color matching and for F regarding the marginal integrity were detected. Conclusion: The clinical performance of both materials was considered acceptable after the 9-year evaluation.
Highlights
Esthetic restorative materials have to simulate the natural tooth in color, texture, and translucency and should have adequate strength, wear, and sealing characteristics [1,2,3,4,5]
Light-cured resin composites have been extensively used in Class III cavities, most of trials assessed clinical performance for 3 years or shorter periods [6,7,8] and only few studies reported observation up to 5 years and longer [4,9,10]
There was a statistically significant difference between the test (Fill MagicTM) and control (Z-100TM) groups regarding the distribution of restorations (X2 = 23.22; p < 0.001)
Summary
Esthetic restorative materials have to simulate the natural tooth in color, texture, and translucency and should have adequate strength, wear, and sealing characteristics [1,2,3,4,5]. Operator, tooth, cavity size, and materials have been reported in the literature as potentially relevant for restoration failures [2,4,12,13], their evidence is still limited. This is mainly attributed to the different experimental designs of clinical studies [14]. Considering this reality, randomized controlled trials provide a high level of evidence for hypothesis testing [14]. Long-term studies and investigations under controlled standardized conditions (ie, split-mouth technique) are considerably more reliable. [15]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
