Next Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Study on the Hardening Features and Performance of Self-Compacting Concrete with High-Volume Fly Ash and Slag
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Novel Bioactive Glass-Containing Dentin Adhesive on the Permeability of Demineralized Dentin
Previous Article in Journal
Water Jet Technology: Experimental Verification of the Input Factors Variation Influence on the Generated Vibration Levels and Frequency Spectra
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Bioactive Glass-Containing Light-Curing Varnish on Enamel Remineralization
Article

Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study

1
School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Public Health Clinic Daruvar, 43500 Daruvar, Croatia
3
Dental Polyclinic Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
4
Clinical Hospital Dubrava, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Dohyun Kim, Sung-Ho Park and Yooseok Shin
Materials 2021, 14(15), 4283; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154283
Received: 7 June 2021 / Revised: 25 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 July 2021 / Published: 31 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry)
This study evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of four different flowable composite materials used in Small Class I restorations in permanent molars. This double-blinded, clinical study analyzed 229 Small Class I restorations/103 children at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months with modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. The tested flowable materials were Voco Grandio Flow + Voco Solobond M, Vivadent Tetric EvoFlow + Vivadent Excite, Dentsply X-Flow + Dentsply Prime&Bond NT, and 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme XT Flow + 3M ESPE Scotchbond Universal. The retention and marginal adaptation rates were highest for Grandio Flow and X Flow materials after 36 months, resulting in the highest score of clinical acceptability at 95.3% and 97.6%, respectively. The Tetric EvoFlow and Filtek Supreme XT Flow had the same retention rate after 36 months at 88.1%. Statistical significance was found in Grandio flow material in postoperative sensitivity criteria (p = 0.021). Tetric EvoFlow showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01), color match (p = 0.004), and marginal adaptation (p = 0.042). Filtek Supreme showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01) and marginal adaptation (p < 0.001). The flowable composite materials showed excellent clinical efficacy after 36 months of their clinical usage. There was no difference among the tested flowable composite materials quality in Small Class I restorations over time. View Full-Text
Keywords: flowable composite; adhesive technique; class I restorations; clinical performance; clinical; permanent molars flowable composite; adhesive technique; class I restorations; clinical performance; clinical; permanent molars
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Dukić, W.; Majić, M.; Prica, N.; Oreški, I. Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study. Materials 2021, 14, 4283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154283

AMA Style

Dukić W, Majić M, Prica N, Oreški I. Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study. Materials. 2021; 14(15):4283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154283

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dukić, Walter, Mia Majić, Natalija Prica, and Ivan Oreški. 2021. "Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study" Materials 14, no. 15: 4283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154283

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop