Download PDF
ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2013; 122(5): 208-215
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1347059
Wissenschaft
Zahnerhaltung
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Erste klinische Erfahrungen mit einem fließfähigen Komposit in Kombination mit einem anderen Komposit bei der Versorgung von Klasse-I- und -II-Kavitäten

Preliminary Clinical Results of a Flowable Composite in Combination with Another Composite in Class-I- and -II-Cavities
C Gernhardt
,
M Michaelis
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 June 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Ziel dieser prospektiven Langzeitstudie ist es, den klinischen Erfolg des fließfähigen Komposits Grandio®SO Heavy Flow (Voco) in Verbindung mit dem Komposit Grandio®SO (Voco) und Futurbond DC (Voco) bei der Versorgung von Kavitäten der Klasse I und II zu untersuchen. Weiterhin soll festgestellt werden, ob die Anwendung in Kombination mit dem hochviskösen fließfähigen Material sichtliche Vorteile gegenüber der alleinigen Verwendung von Grandio®SO zeigt.

An dieser Studie nehmen 50 Patienten teil, die einen Behandlungsbedarf der Klassen I oder II an mindestens 2 Molaren oder Prämolaren aufwiesen. Es wurde jeweils eine Kavität mit Futurabond DC (Selfetch) und dem Komposit Grandio®SO sowie die 2. Kavität mit der Kombination aus Grandio®SO Heavy Flow und dem Komposit Grandio®SO gefüllt. Insgesamt wurden 32 Klasse-I-Defekte und 68 Klasse-II-Defekte versorgt, wobei die Zuteilung zufällig erfolgte. Die Füllungen wurden unter Kofferdam gelegt, und die Materialien wurden streng nach Herstelleranweisungen verarbeitet. Dokumentiert werden die prä- und intraoperativen Situationen, die Baseline-Befunde (postoperativ nach ca. 2 Wochen) und die Befunde der Nachuntersuchungen nach 6 Monaten. Die klinischen Bewertungen erfolgen nach den von Ryge und Pieper vorgeschlagenen Kriterien. Eine Verbesserung der Randqualität bei der Verwendung eines hochviskösen fließfähigen Komposits als zusätzlichen Kavitätenliner wurde geprüft, wobei zwischen beiden Gruppen keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede auftraten (Mann-Whitney-U-Test, p > 0,001).

The aim of this prospective study was to determine the clinical performance of the flowable composite Grandio®SO Heavy Flow (Voco) in combination with the composite Grandio®SO (Voco) and the self-etch adhesive Futurabond DC (Voco) for class I and II restorations. Furthermore, the improvement of the marginal adaptation with the additional use of a flowable resin composite for cavity lining was tested.

Fifty patients were included in this investigation. Each patient has at least two different posterior teeth requiring dental treatment. The first restoration was applied using the composite material Grandio®SO while the second filling was applied using an additional layer of Grandio®SO Heavy Flow. In all cases the self-etch adhesive system Futurabond DC (Voco) was used. 32 class I defects and 68 class II defects were restored. The Baseline-check-up was carried out two weeks after treatment and the first follow-up was performed after six months.

Regarding all parameters no statistical significant differences could be detected between both groups (Mann-Whitney-U-Test, p > 0.001).

Schlüsselwörter

klinische Studie - selbstätzendes Einkomponenten-Adhäsiv - fließfähiges Komposit - Randspaltuntersuchung

Key words

Clinical Study - Self-etch Adhesive - Flowable Composite - Success Rate - Fillings
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Geurtsen W, Schoeler U. A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class I and Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1997; 25: 229-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Türkün LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int 2003; 34: 418-426
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Akimoto N, Takamizu M, Momoi Y. 10-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching adhesive system. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bekes K, Boeckler L, Gernhardt CR et al. Clinical performance of a self-etching and a total-etch adhesive system – 2-year results. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34: 855-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boeckler A, Boeckler L, Eppendorf K et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of a two-step self-etching vs two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and SEM margin analysis: four-year results. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14: 585-592
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Boeckler A, Schaller HG, Gernhardt CR. A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of a one-step, self-etch adhesive with and without an intermediary layer of a flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. Quintessence Int 2012; 43: 279-286
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Charton C, Colon P, Pla F. Shrinkage stress in light-cured composite resins: Influence of material and photoactivation mode. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 911-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bullard RH, Leinfelder KF, Russell CM. Effect of coefficient of thermal expansion on microleakage. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 116: 871-874
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Giachetti L, Bertini F, Bambi C et al. A rational use of dental materials in posterior direct resin restorations in order to control polymerization shrinkage stress. Minerva Stomatol 2007; 56: 129-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Prager MC. Using flowable composites in direct posterior restorations. Dent Today 1997; 16: 66-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yazici AR, Ozgünaltay G, Dayangaç B. The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 773-778
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tredwin CJ, Stokes A, Moles DR. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 32-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Neme AM, Maxson BB, Pink FE et al. Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 600-605
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömeç Y et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner. J Adhes Dent 2006; 8: 119-126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Loguercio AD, Zago C, Leal K et al. One-year clinical evaluation of a flowable resin liner associated with a microhybrid resin in noncarious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9: 18-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K et al. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7: 129-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lindberg A, van Dijken JW, Hörstedt P. In vivo interfacial adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a flowable resin composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9: 77-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sakrana AA, Tanoue N, Kawasaki K et al. One-year clinical evaluation of two composite materials used for anterior class V restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31: 985-990
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Türkün SL. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent 2003; 31: 527-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Braun AR, Frankenberger R, Krämer N. Clinical performance and margin analysis of ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year. Clin Oral Investig 2001; 5: 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground dentin by a phenyl-P self-etching primer. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1212-1220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Malmstrom HS, Schlueter M, Roach T et al. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 373-380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Olmez A, Oztas N, Bodur H. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 713-719
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 150-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Stefanski S, van Dijken JW. Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 147-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar