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

dc.contributor.authorTorres, C. R. G. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorAugusto, M. G. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorMathias-Santamaria, I. F. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDi Nicolo, R. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorBorges, A. B. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-10T20:09:48Z
dc.date.available2020-12-10T20:09:48Z
dc.date.issued2020-07-01
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.en
dc.description.affiliationSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Restorat Dent, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Social Dent & Pediat, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Restorat Dent, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespSao Paulo State Univ, Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Social Dent & Pediat, UNESP, Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil
dc.format.extent359-367
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2341/19-079-C
dc.identifier.citationOperative Dentistry. Indianapolis: Operative Dentistry Inc, v. 45, n. 4, p. 359-367, 2020.
dc.identifier.doi10.2341/19-079-C
dc.identifier.issn0361-7734
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/197215
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000562168900004
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherOperative Dentistry Inc
dc.relation.ispartofOperative Dentistry
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.titlePure Ormocer vs Methacrylate Composites on Posterior Teeth: A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trialen
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.rightsHolderOperative Dentistry Inc
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.lattes3135367849609938[1]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-9485-5514[1]
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia, São José dos Campospt
unesp.departmentOdontologia Restauradora - ICTpt
unesp.departmentOdontologia Social e Clínica Infantil - ICTpt

Arquivos