These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical evaluation of Giomer and self-etch adhesive compared with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive - Results at 8 years.
    Author: Tian F, Mu H, Shi Y, Chen X, Zou X, Gao X, Wang X.
    Journal: Dent Mater; 2024 Jul; 40(7):1088-1095. PubMed ID: 38806383.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of Giomer and a self-etch adhesive system compared with a nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive system in Class I and Class II restorations. METHOD: The study was designed to be double-blinded with intra-individual control. 48 patients with 54 pairs of cavities (class I or class II) were recruited. Each pair of restorations was placed with either BEAUTIFIL II (BF) and FL-BOND II (FL) or Filtek Z350 (Z350) and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SMP). Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline, 6-month, 18-month, 4-year and 8-year after placement according to modified USPHS criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log rank tests were performed (SPSS 20.0, IBM Corporation, US) to compare the survival probability of different restorations.A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was adopted to assess the performance of the materials. The McNemar test was used to show significant changes for all the evaluation criteria and difference between them. RESULTS: At the eight-year recall, 32 patients with 67 restorations were present. There were twelve restorations in total recorded as failure due to loss of retention, restoration fracture, secondary caries, tooth fracture or endodontic treatment due to pulp necrosis. The survival probabilities and calculated annual failure rate(AFR) of BF and Z350 restorations at 8-year were 87.2 % vs 87.8 % and 1.6 % vs 1.5 % respectively with no significant difference (p > 0.05)between the two materials. Over the recall time range of eight years, decreased possibility of alpha rating was observed for retention, marginal adaptation, marginal staining and surface roughness for both materials (p < 0.05). Decreased possibility of alpha rating was observed for surface staining and secondary caries for Z350 (p < 0.05) and restoration fracture for BF (p < 0.05), respectively. Comparing the two restorative systems over eight years, no significant difference was seen for linear decline of the possibility of alpha rating for any of the criteria evaluated (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Giomer material and the self-etch adhesive system had comparable clinical performance with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive system over the observation period of eight years.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]