|
Clinical Relevance
Microfilled composite, nanohybrid composite, and compomer give similar results in treatment of noncarious cervical lesions within a two-year evaluation period. SUMMARY Introduction: The aim of this two-year prospective clinical study was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of three different adhesive esthetic materials in noncarious cervical lesions.
Material and Methods: A total of 90 restorations (30 per material) were placed in 30 patients who ranged in age between 18 and 50 years and of both genders, by a single operator with no previous preparation. The restoration of noncarious cervical lesions was done with either a microfilled composite (Esthet.X/Dentsply/De Trey, Konstanz, Germany, and Prime&Bond NT/Dentsply/De Trey), a nanohybrid composite (TetricEvoCeram/Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein, and AdheSE/Vivadent), or a compomer (Dyract eXtra/Dentsply/De Trey and Xeno III Dentsply/De Trey). All restorations were evaluated by independent examiners using a modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline and after 12 and 24 months for six clinical categories. Data were analyzed statistically by Pearson's chi-square or the Fisher's exact test at 5% significance level (p<0.05).
Results: Results showed that most of the restorations were clinically satisfactory after 12 and 24 months, with no statistically significant differences among the three groups for all evaluated criteria.
Conclusion: Treatment of noncarious cervical lesions using composite and compomer materials, combined with the appropriate adhesive systems and properly implemented restorative procedures, gives satisfactory results after a two-year evaluation period.
|
