Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT
K Heck, J Manhart, R Hickel, C Diegritz - Dental Materials, 2018 - Elsevier
K Heck, J Manhart, R Hickel, C Diegritz
Dental Materials, 2018•ElsevierObjective The objective of this RCT was to compare the 10-year clinical performance of
QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single-or multi-surface cavities. Methods 46
QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in
14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation
was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health
Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 …
QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single-or multi-surface cavities. Methods 46
QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in
14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation
was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health
Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 …
Objective
The objective of this RCT was to compare the 10-year clinical performance of QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single- or multi-surface cavities.
Methods
46 QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in 14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 stress bearing class I and 45 class II cavities, were assessed.
Results
Ten failed restorations were observed during the follow-up period, four Tetric Ceram restorations failed due to secondary caries (2), tooth fracture (1) and bulk fracture combined with secondary caries (1) whereas six QuiXfil restorations failed due to secondary caries (1), tooth fracture (2), secondary caries combined with restoration fracture (1), restoration fracture (1) and postoperative sensitivity (1). Fisher’s exact test yielded no significant difference between both materials (p = 0.487).
Significance
Both materials, bulk fill QuiXfil restorations and Tetric Ceram restorations, showed highly clinical effectiveness during the 10-year follow-up.
Elsevier
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果