International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine



Forgotten password?


Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 16 (2014), OMD/PDA     14. Jan. 2015
Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 16 (2014), OMD/PDA  (14.01.2015)

Supplement, Poster 833, Language: English

Two Years Of Restorations Clinical Performance Considering Different Adhesive Solvents
Costa, Liliana Gavinha
Introduction and Objectives: Dental adhesive' solvents can compromise restorations performance. To compare clinical performance of class II composite restorations, considering different adhesive' solvents, acetone and butanol.
Materials and Methods: Two prospective clinical trials, two-years, approved by the Ethics Committee, in 52 adult patients of FCS-UFP. Incremental restorative technique with Ceram-XTMmono; Adhesive systems (solvents): Prime&BondNT® (acetone), and XPBond® Xeno™V (butanol); 142 restorations evaluated with USPHS/FDI criteria (aesthetic, functional, biological parameters), by calibrated examiners (ICC≥0.910); Comparison of restorations clinical performance (success rate, %) with non-parametric tests (α=0.05).
Results: At 2 years, restorations/adhesives with acetone (n=61,13%dropout) and butanol (n=71, 2%dropout) solvents showed success: Aesthetic 100% and 98.6%; Functional 98.4% and 100% (T.Fisher, p>0.05); Biological 98.4% and 88.7% (p=0.037), respectively. There were clinically unacceptable: One (1.6%) restoration adhesive/acetone solvent in marginal integrity (repairable) and one (1.4%) with adhesive/butanol solvent in marginal staining. Recurrent caries occurred in one (1.6%) restoration adhesive/acetone and 8 (11.3%) with butanol solvents. During two years follow-up, the restorations change levels of clinical acceptability: those with adhesive/acetone solvent in marginal integrity and fracture/ retention (T.Fisher,p<0.05); those with adhesive/butanol solvent in marginal integrity (p=0.013); Only restorations/adhesive with butanol solvent showed significant recurrence of caries (T.Fisher, p=0.003). Monitoring of restorations/adhesives with different solvents should be carried out for long-term evaluations.
Conclusions: Restorations with adhesives/solvents, acetone and butanol, showed similar and acceptable aesthetic and functional performance; lower performance occurred in a biological criterion of those with butanol.
Clinical implications: Adhesives with acetone/butanol solvents have satisfactory clinical performance in class II composite restorations.

Keywords: Adhesive systems, adhesives solvents, composite restorations, clinical performance, Ryge criteria, FDI criteria, clinical trial

23. Portuguese Dental Association Annual Meeting
6.-8. November 2014
Exponor, Matosinhos, Portugal