Pure Ormocer vs Methacrylate Composites on Posterior Teeth: A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

Registro completo de metadados
MetadadosDescriçãoIdioma
Autor(es): dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)-
Autor(es): dc.creatorTorres, C. R. G. [UNESP]-
Autor(es): dc.creatorAugusto, M. G. [UNESP]-
Autor(es): dc.creatorMathias-Santamaria, I. F. [UNESP]-
Autor(es): dc.creatorDi Nicolo, R. [UNESP]-
Autor(es): dc.creatorBorges, A. B. [UNESP]-
Data de aceite: dc.date.accessioned2022-02-22T00:11:35Z-
Data de disponibilização: dc.date.available2022-02-22T00:11:35Z-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2020-12-09-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2020-12-09-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2020-07-01-
Fonte completa do material: dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2341/19-079-C-
Fonte completa do material: dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/197215-
Fonte: dc.identifier.urihttp://educapes.capes.gov.br/handle/11449/197215-
Descrição: dc.descriptionObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of class II restorations made using pure ormocer and methacrylate composites in a period of 24 months, using a split-mouth double-blinded randomized design. Methods and Materials: Thirty patients received two class II restorations (n=60) performed with different composites: GrandioSO (methacrylate, nanohybrid) and Admira Fusion (pure ormocer, nanohybrid). The universal adhesive system (Futurabond M+) was applied in all restorations using the self-etching mode. The composites were placed by the incremental technique. The restorations were evaluated using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria after 7 days and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: After 24 months, 23 patients attended the recall and 46 restorations were evaluated. Fisher's statistical analysis (5%) showed no difference between the materials. One pure ormocer restoration and one methacrylate restoration presented small fractures. Only one tooth suffered a fracture of the remaining tooth structure. Admira Fusion presented, respectively, 100%, 95.66%, and 100% of acceptable performance in general scores for esthetic, functional, and biological properties. GrandioSO presented, respectively, 100%, 91.31%, and 95.66% of acceptable performance in the same scores. Conclusion: After 24-month follow-up, nonsignificant differences between the tested composites was detected. Both materials provided acceptable clinical performance in class II restorations.-
Descrição: dc.descriptionSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Restorat Dent, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil-
Descrição: dc.descriptionSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Social Dent & Pediat, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil-
Descrição: dc.descriptionSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Restorat Dent, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil-
Descrição: dc.descriptionSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Social Dent & Pediat, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil-
Formato: dc.format359-367-
Idioma: dc.languageen-
Publicador: dc.publisherOperative Dentistry Inc-
Relação: dc.relationOperative Dentistry-
???dc.source???: dc.sourceWeb of Science-
Título: dc.titlePure Ormocer vs Methacrylate Composites on Posterior Teeth: A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial-
Tipo de arquivo: dc.typelivro digital-
Aparece nas coleções:Repositório Institucional - Unesp

Não existem arquivos associados a este item.