We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

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

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