Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations
- PMID: 16268391
Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations
Abstract
This clinical study evaluated the retention and caries protection of a flowable resin composite (Flow Line) and a flowable compomer (Dyract Flow) used in preventive resin restorations as compared to the conventional preventive resin technique which uses a resin composite (Brilliant) and a sealant (Concise). This study observed 205 permanent molars with small carious cavities less than 1.5 mm in width, which were obtained from 165 children aged 7 to 15 years. Flowable resin composite was used to treat 75 teeth, and 71 teeth were treated with flowable compomer in both cavities and caries-free fissures. For the control group, 59 teeth were treated with resin composite in cavities and sealant in caries-free fissures. The teeth were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24-month intervals. After three months, all 205 treated teeth were completely intact. After six months, 66 of the 71 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 65 of the 70 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 57 of the 58 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 12 months, 60 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 61 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 51 of the 55 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 18 months, 53 of the 61 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 54 of the 62 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 47 of the 53 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 24 months, 49 of the 58 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 45 of the 57 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 42 of the 52 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. There were no statistically significant differences in retention rates among all groups after 3, 6, 12, 18 or 24-months (p>0.05). One tooth treated with flowable resin composite and one tooth treated with flowable compomer developed caries after 18 and 24 months, respectively, resulting from partial loss at "caries-free fissures." Five teeth developed caries in the conventional preventive resin group; one after 12 months, two after 18 months and one after 24 months, due to loss at cavities. The final caries occurred after 24 months, resulting from partial loss at "caries-free fissures." The differences in caries development among the three groups were not statistically significant (p>0.05). This study suggested that flowable resin composite and flowable compomer could be used for preventive resin restorations. Meanwhile, a vigilant recall should be followed-up due to the risk of failure for flowable materials in "caries-free" fissures. The repair should be performed immediately, in case the preventive resin restoration develops a fracture or loss.
Similar articles
-
Clinical evaluation of a medium-filled flowable restorative material as a pit and fissure sealant.Oper Dent. 2002 Jul-Aug;27(4):325-9. Oper Dent. 2002. PMID: 12120768 Clinical Trial.
-
[Clinical evaluation of three different materials for fissure sealing after 12 months].Acta Med Croatica. 2006 Jun;60(3):209-14. Acta Med Croatica. 2006. PMID: 16933833 Croatian.
-
Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement.Aust Dent J. 2008 Dec;53(4):325-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00074.x. Aust Dent J. 2008. PMID: 19133948
-
A clinical review of preventive resin restorations.ASDC J Dent Child. 1990 Jul-Aug;57(4):257-9. ASDC J Dent Child. 1990. PMID: 2197305 Review.
-
Preventive resin restorations and sealants in light of current evidence.Dent Clin North Am. 2005 Oct;49(4):815-23, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2005.05.002. Dent Clin North Am. 2005. PMID: 16150318 Review.
Cited by
-
An In Vivo Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Posterior High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement and Glass Hybrid Bulk-fill Alkasite Restorative Material as Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition: A Comparative Study.Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022 Sep-Oct;15(5):529-534. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2435. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022. PMID: 36865732 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of marginal sealing ability of self-adhesive flowable composite resin in Class II composite restoration: An in vitro study.J Conserv Dent. 2018 Jul-Aug;21(4):363-368. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_94_18. J Conserv Dent. 2018. PMID: 30122814 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study.Materials (Basel). 2021 Jul 31;14(15):4283. doi: 10.3390/ma14154283. Materials (Basel). 2021. PMID: 34361477 Free PMC article.
-
Fissure sealant materials: Wear resistance of flowable composite resins.J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2016;10(3):194-9. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2016.031. Epub 2016 Aug 17. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2016. PMID: 27651887 Free PMC article.
-
Does the use of a novel self-adhesive flowable composite reduce nanoleakage?Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015 Mar 27;7:55-64. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S80462. eCollection 2015. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015. PMID: 25848318 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Medical