Clinical evaluation of low-shrinkage bioactive material giomer versus nanohybrid resin composite restorations: A two-year prospective controlled clinical trial

dc.authorid0000-0003-3460-4382
dc.authorid0000-0001-9589-3232
dc.contributor.authorToz Akalın, Tuğba
dc.contributor.authorÖztürk Bozkurt, Funda
dc.contributor.authorKuşdemir, Mahmut
dc.contributor.authorÖzsoy, Alev
dc.contributor.authorYüzbaşıoğlu, Emir
dc.contributor.authorÖzcan, Mutlu
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-06T07:57:34Z
dc.date.available2023-01-06T07:57:34Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Ana Bilim Dalı
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated the clinical performance of low-shrinkage bioactive resin composite compared with a conventional nanohybrid resin composite. A total of 35 patients (18 males, 17 females; mean age: 29±9 years old) received, randomly, 35 pairs of fillings restored with either low-shrinkage bioactive material employing Giomer filler technology (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or conventional nanohybrid resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Japan) in Class I and Class II cavities. Two operators made all the restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins: FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), according to each manufacturer's instructions. Two calibrated operators evaluated the restorations two weeks after placement (baseline), at six months, and at one and two years using FDI criteria (Scores 1-5). Data were analyzed using the McNemar test (?=0.05). Mean observation time was 27.4 ± 4.1 months (min=20.8; max=33.7). In both groups, according to FDI criteria, the restorations were mostly rated with best scores (Score 1 or 2) for biological, functional, and optical parameters. For one filling in the group restored with nanohybrid resin composite, a small and localized secondary caries lesion was observed and monitored at the one- and two-year follow-ups. One restoration in the low-shrinkage Giomer restorative group was accepted as a failure due to retention loss. Over the two-year follow-up, both the Giomer and the nanohybrid resin composite restorations' performance was clinically acceptable.
dc.identifier.citationToz Akalın, T., Öztürk Bozkurt, F., Kuşdemir, M., Özsoy, A., Yüzbaşıoğlu, E. ve Özcan, M. (2023). Clinical evaluation of low-shrinkage bioactive material giomer versus nanohybrid resin composite restorations: A two-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Operative Dentistry, 48(1), 10-20. https://dx.doi.org/10.2341/21-155-C
dc.identifier.doi10.2341/21-155-C
dc.identifier.endpage20
dc.identifier.issn0361-7734
dc.identifier.issn1559-2863
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pmid36508717
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85145022538
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage10
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.2341/21-155-C
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/10253
dc.identifier.volume48
dc.identifier.wos000914428900004en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.institutionauthorÖztürk Bozkurt, Funda
dc.institutionauthorKuşdemir, Mahmut
dc.institutionauthorÖzsoy, Alev
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherNLM (Medline)
dc.relation.ispartofOperative Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectBioactive Material
dc.subjectResin Composite Restorations
dc.subjectGiomer Versus Nanohybrid
dc.titleClinical evaluation of low-shrinkage bioactive material giomer versus nanohybrid resin composite restorations: A two-year prospective controlled clinical trial
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Lisans paketi
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim Yok
İsim:
license.txt
Boyut:
1.44 KB
Biçim:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Açıklama: