Amaç: Bu çalışma, 3 farklı adeziv teknik kullanılarak yapılan posterior kompozit restorasyonların klinik performansını değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya arka dişlerinde restorasyon gerektiren en az 3 çürük dişi olan toplam 29 hasta dâhil edildi. Çürük dişlerin her birine rastgele farklı bir yöntemle kompozit restorasyonlar yapıldı. Farklı yöntemlerin her biri aşağıdaki gibi bir grubu temsil ediyordu: Grup 1: Mine kenarlarını %37 fosforik asitle seçici olarak asitleme+universal bir adeziv uygulanması (Adhese Universal, Ivoclar, Schaan, Lihtenştayn), Grup 2: Universal bir adeziv sisteminin uygulanması (Adhese Universal, Ivoclar, Schaan, Lihtenştayn), Grup 3: Self-etch adeziv sisteminin uygulanması (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Okayama, Japonya). Adeziv prosedürü farklı olmasına rağmen her grup bir posterior kompozit rezin (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Okayama, Japonya ) ile restore edildi. Restorasyonlar 6 ay ve 1 yıl sonra FDI Dünya Diş Hekimliği Federasyonu kriterlerine göre kalibre edilmiş 2 klinisyen tarafından değerlendirildi. Veriler %95 güven aralığında Kruskal-Wallis ve Wilcoxon testleri kullanılarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: Bir yılın sonunda kontrol muayenesine 26 hasta katıldı. İncelenen kriterler açısından 1 yıl sonunda gruplar arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p>0,05). Her 3 grubun da başlangıç skorları ile 1 yıl sonraki skorları istatistiksel olarak benzer bulundu (p>0,05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sınırlamaları dâhilinde grupların 1 yıllık klinik performansları benzer bulundu. Bu konuda daha uzun takip süreli klinik çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kompozit rezinler; ışıkla kürlenen dental adezivler; asitle aşındırma
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of posterior composite restorations performed using 3 different adhesive techniques. Material and Methods: A total of 29 patients with at least 3 carious teeth that need restorations in their posterior teeth were included to the study. Composite restorations were performed to each of the decayed teeth using a different method randomly. Each of the different methods represented a group as follow: Group 1: Selectively etching the enamel margins with 37% phosphoric acid+applying a universal adhesive system (Adhese Universal, Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Group 2: Applying a universal adhesive system (Adhese Universal, Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein), Group 3: Applying a self-etch adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan). Although the adhesive procedure was different, each group was restored with a posterior composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan). The restorations were evaluated by 2 calibrated clinicians according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria after 6 months and 1 year. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests at 95% confidence intervals. Results: At the end of 1 year, 26 patients attended the control examination. No significant difference was found between the groups at the end of 1 year in terms of the examined criteria (p>0.05). The baseline scores of all 3 groups and the scores after 1 year were found to be statistically similar (p>0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the 1-year clinical performances of the groups were found to be similar. Clinical studies with longer follow-up periods are needed on this subject.
Keywords: Composite resins; light curing of dental adhesives; acid etching
- Eltahlah D, Lynch CD, Chadwick BL, Blum IR, Wilson NHF. An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. J Dent. 2018;72:1-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28(3):215-35. [PubMed]
- Giannini M, Makishi P, Ayres AP, Vermelho PM, Fronza BM, Nikaido T, et al. Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J. 2015;26(1):3-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, et al. Bonding effectiveness of a new 'multi-mode' adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent. 2012;40(6):475-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res. 2004;83(6):454-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, et al. Self-assembled Nano-layering at the Adhesive interface. J Dent Res. 2012;91(4):376-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Okihara T, De Munck J, et al. Adhesive interfacial interaction affected by different carbon-chain monomers. Dent Mater. 2013;29(8):888-97. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cuevas-Suárez CE, da Rosa WLO, Lund RG, da Silva AF, Piva E. Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):7-26. [PubMed]
- Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(7):765-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):113-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Çakır NN, Demirbuga S. The effect of five different universal adhesives on the clinical success of class I restorations: 24-month clinical follow-up. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(6):2767-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent. 2017;8(2). [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Carvalho AA, Leite MM, Zago JKM, Nunes CABCM, Barata TJE, Freitas GC, et al. Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin - a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):252. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Oz FD, Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Soleimani R, Gurgan S. An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(3):1443-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ranjitha GR, Vikram R, Meena N, Vijayalakshmi L, Murthy CS. Clinical efficacy of universal adhesives for the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial. J Conserv Dent. 2020;23(3):227-32. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Jung JH, Park SH. Comparison of polymerization shrinkage, physical properties, and marginal adaptation of flowable and restorative bulk fill resin-based composites. Oper Dent. 2017;42(4):375-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dietschi D, Curto FD Dr, Di Bella E, Krejci I, Ardu S. In vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation in medium- and large size direct class II restorations using a bulk-fill or layering technique. J Dent. 2021;115:103828. Erratum in: J Dent. 2022;118:104046. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Benetti AR, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A, Flury S. Resin composites: Modulus of elasticity and marginal quality. J Dent. 2014;42(9):1185-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kwon OH, Kim DH, Park SH. The influence of elastic modulus of base material on the marginal adaptation of direct composite restoration. Oper Dent. 2010;35(4):441-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Opdam NJ, Feilzer AJ, Roeters JJ, Smale I. Class I occlusal composite resin restorations: in vivo post-operative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and microleakage. Am J Dent. 1998;11(5):229-34. [PubMed]
- Canali GD, Ignácio SA, Rached RN, Souza EM. One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(2):889-97. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Loguercio AD, Rezende M, Gutierrez MF, Costa TF, Armas-Vega A, Reis A. Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations. J Dent. 2019;85:93-102. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Cefaly DF, Jorge MF, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10(3):197-203. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results. Eur J Dent. 2010;4(1):57-65. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Kubo S, Kawasaki A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater J. 2011;30(3):374-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: İşlem Listesi