ÖZET

Amaç:

Bu çalışmanın amacı Sınıf 2 kavitelere uygulanan bulk-fill restoratif materyallerin klinik performanslarını retrospektif olarak değerlendirmektir.

Yöntemler:

Selçuk Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı'nda bulk-fill restoratif materyallerle restore edilen Sınıf 2 restorasyonlar HBYS (Hastane Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi) otomasyon programı kullanılarak kayıtlardan tespit edilip hastalar kontrollere çağrıldı. Kliniğimizde kullanılan bulk-fill restoratif materyallerden 3 tanesi olan Equia Forte (EF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TBF) ve Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restoratif (FBF) bu çalışmada karşılaştırıldı. Çalışmaya 79 hasta ve 192 adet restorasyon dahil edildi. Restorasyonlar yapılış tarihinden itibaren 6., 12. ve 24. aylarda modifiye USPHS kriterlerine göre değerlendirildi. Gruplar arasındaki farkın istatistiksel analizi için ki-kare testi (p<0,05) kullanıldı. Her grubun kendi içinde zamana bağlı değişimi arasındaki farkın anlamlılığı için Cochran Q testi (p<0,05) kullanıldı.

Bulgular:

Yirmi dört ay sonunda 64 hastada 139 restorasyon değerlendirildi, EF grubunda 13 adet, TBF grubunda 3 adet restorasyon klinik olarak başarısız bulunurken; FBF grubunda klinik olarak başarısız restorasyon belirlenmedi. Kompozit restorasyonlarda klinik olarak kabul edilebilir değişiklikler gözlendi. Ayrıca kompozit materyaller arasında klinik performanslarının değerlendirildiği hiçbir kriterde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p>0,05). Yalnızca EF grubu ile TBF ve FBF grupları arasında 24. ayda retansiyon kriteri açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık gözlendi (p<0,05).

Sonuç:

Bu çalışmada iki yıllık bir takip süresi boyunca, iki bulk fill kompozit materyal benzer klinik performans gösterirken; yüksek viskoziteli cam iyonomer materyal daha düşük klinik performans sergiledi.

References

Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 2014;42:377-83.

Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014;93:943-9.

Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28:87-101.

da Veiga AM, Cunha AC, Ferreira DM, da Silva Fidalgo TK, Chianca TK, Reis KR, et al. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;54:1-12.

Tiba A, Charlton DG, Vandewalle KS, Cohen ME. Volumetric polymerization shrinkage of resin composites under simulated intraoral temperature and humidity conditions. Oper Dent 2005;30:696-701.

Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:1150-7.

Braga RR, Ferracane JL. Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2004;15:176-84.

Kuijs RH, Fennis WM, Kreulen CM, Barink M, Verdonschot N. Does layering minimize shrinkage stresses in composite restorations? J Dent Res 2003;82:967-71.

Coelho Santos MJ, Santos GC Jr, Nagem Filho H, Mondelli RF, El-Mowafy O. Effect of light curing method on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of resin composites. Oper Dent 2004;29:157-61.

Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2005;21:962-70.

Ferracane JL. Resin composite--state of the art. Dent Mater 2011;27:29-38.

Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. Dent Mater 2011;27:348-55.

Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013;38:618-25.

Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1991-2000.

El-Damanhoury H, Platt J. Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 2014;39:374-82.

Fronza BM, Rueggeberg FA, Braga RR, Mogilevych B, Soares LE, Martin AA, et al. Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation, and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composites. Dent Mater 2015;31:1542-51.

Burke FJT. Dental materials--what goes where? The current status of glass ionomer as a material for loadbearing restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Update 2013;40:840-4.

Berg JH, Croll TP. Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update. Pediatr Dent 2015;37:116-24.

Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater 2011;27:1031-7.

Çelik EU, Tunac AT, Yilmaz F. A Randomized, Controlled, Split-mouth Trial Evaluating the Clinical Performance of High-viscosity Glass-ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: Two-year Results. J Adhes Dent 2018;20:299-305.

Bagheri R, Palamara J, Mese A, Manton DJ. Effect of a self-adhesive coating on the load-bearing capacity of tooth-coloured restorative materials. Aust Dent J 2017;62:71-8.

Balkaya H, Arslan S. A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities. Oper Dent 2020;45:E32-E42.

Loguercio AD, Reis A. Application of a dental adhesive using the self-etch and etch-and-rinse approaches: an 18-month clinical evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:53-61.

Colak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Hamidi MM, Ercan E. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20:822-31.

Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations. Oper Dent 2017;42:478-85.

Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Appelt A, Naumann M, Frankenberger R. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 2011;39:643-7.

Akman H, Tosun G. Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children. Niger J Clin Pract 2020;23:489-97.

Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 2015;40:134-43.

Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:2335-43.

Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Krämer N. Clinical Performance of Viscous Glass Ionomer Cement in Posterior Cavities over Two Years. Int J Dent 2009;2009:781462.

Türkün LS, Kanik Ö. A Prospective Six-Year Clinical Study Evaluating Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cements with Resin Coating on Posterior Teeth: Quo Vadis? Oper Dent 2016;41:587-98.

Tal E, Kupietzky A, Fuks AB, Tickotsky N, Moskovitz M. Clinical Performance of Heat-Cured High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A Preliminary Study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41:264-70.

Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MC. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. J Dent 2007;35:156-62.

Mount GJ. An Atlas of Glass-Ionomer Cements: A Clinician’s Guide. Thieme. 2002.

Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:753-9.

Auschill TM, Koch CA, Wolkewitz M, Hellwig E, Arweiler NB. Occurrence and causing stimuli of postoperative sensitivity in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34:3-10.

Bulk-fill Restoratif Materyallerle Yapılmış Sınıf 2 Restorasyonların Klinik Değerlendirmesi

ÖZET

References