30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite

• Autor(a) principal: Andrade, Ana Karina Maciel de
• Data de Publicação: 2011
• Outros Autores: Duarte, Rosângela Marques, Silva, Fábia Danielle Sales Cunha Medeiros e, Batista, André Ulisses Dantas, Lima, Kenio Costa de, Pontual, Maria Luíza dos Anjos, Montes, Marcos Antonio Japiassú Resende
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRN
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/22958
• topic: Nanofill composite; Nanohybrid composite; Clinical evaluation

Objective To evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth in a randomised trial over 30 months. Methods Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with a nanofill (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE), a nanohybrid (Esthet-X, Dentsply); Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) was used as a control. After 30 months, the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the US Public Health Service (USPHS) modified criteria. The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis, at a level of significance of 5%. Results There were significant differences in the roughness of Filtek Z250 (p = 0.008) and Filtek Z350 (p < 0.001) when the four time periods (baseline, 6 months, 12 months and 30 months) were compared. There were significant differences in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 (p = 0.001), Filtek Z350 (p < 0.001) and Esthet-X (p = 0.011). Except for one of each composite restoration, all the modifications ranged from Alpha to Bravo. There were significant differences in the surface roughness (p = 0.005) when the three composites were compared after 30 months. Conclusions The materials investigated showed acceptable clinical performance after 30 months. Long-term re-evaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites (CEP: #1252).