Büyük Azı ve Küçük Azı Dişlerindeki Sınıf II Kavitelere Uygulanan Bulk Fill Materyalinin Klinik Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Ivocerin başlatıcılı bulk fill kompozit materyalinin 12 aylık süreyle FDI Değerlendirme kriterlerinin estetik özellikleri içerisinde olan; renk ve translüsensi, yüzey parlaklığı, yüzey ve marjin renklenmesi ile estetik anatomik form kriterlerinin premolar ve molar dişlerde karşılıklı olarak değerlendirmektir. Materyal ve Metod: Arayüz çürüğüne sahip premolar ve molar dişlere aynı şartlarda ve aynı hekim tarafından Sınıf II bulk fill restorasyonlar uygulandı ve 12 aylık takipleri yapıldı. Restorasyonlar FDI kriterlerinin estetik kriterleri ile değerlendirmeye tabi tutuldu. Premolar ve molar dişlere yapışmış olan restorasyonlar bu kriterlere dayanarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: İncelenmiş olan restorasyonların hiçbirinde değiştirilmesine gerek duyulacak skorlamalar yoktu. Premolar ve molar dişler olarak gruplandırılan iki grupta da 12 ay sonra skor değişimi gösterenrestorasyonlar vardı fakat istatistiksel olarak premolar ve molar dişler arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p>0.05). Sonuç: Bu sonuçlar ve değerlendirmeler ışığında molar ve premolar dişlerin estetik klinik özellikleri arasında anlamlı farklar bulunamamıştır.

Keywords

• Bulk Fill
• Sınıf II kaviteler
• Klinik araştırmalar.

Clinical Evaluation of Bulk Fill Material Applied to Class II Cavities in Molar and Premolar Teeth

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Ivocerin starter bulk fill composite material in terms of aesthetic properties of FDI Evaluation criteria for 12 months. Evaluated criteria is color match and translucency, surface luster, surface and margin staining and aesthetic anatomical form criteria. Restorations applied to premolar and molar teeth were evaluated by comparing them with each other. Material and Method: Class II bulk fill restorations were applied to premolar and molar teeth with caries under the same conditions and by the same physician. 12-month follow-up was done. Restorations were evaluated according to the aesthetic criteria of the FDI criteria. Restorations applied to premolar and molar teeth were evaluated with these criteria. Results: None of the restorations had scores that would need changing. There were restorations showing a change in score after 12 months in both groups, which were grouped as premolar and molar teeth, but there was no statistically significant difference between premolar and molar teeth (p>0.05). Conclusion: As a result of these results and evaluations, no significant differences were found between the esthetic clinical features of molar and premolar teeth.

Keywords

• Bulk Fill
• class II cavity
• clinical research.

References

1. 1. MARSH, Philip D. Dental plaque as a biofilm and a microbial community–implications for health and disease. In: BMC Oral health. BioMed Central, 2006. p. 1-7.
2. 2. Young DA, Featherstone J, Roth JR, Anderson M, Autio-Gold J, Christensen GJ, et al. Caries Management By Risk Assessment: Implementation Guidelines. J Calif Dent Assoc 2007;35(11):799-805.
3. 3. Touger-Decker R, Van Loveren C. Sugars and Dental Caries. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78(4):881-892.
4. 4. Ramos-Gomez F, Weintraub J, Gansky S, Hoover C, Featherstone J. Bacterial, Behavioral and Environmental Factors Associated with Early Childhood Caries. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003;26(2):165-173.
5. 5. Schwendicke F. Management of Deep Carious Lesions. Ch1; Removing or Controlling? Springer International Publishing, 1.ed. 2018.
6. 6. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New Direct Restorative Materials. Int Dent J 1998;48(1):3-16.
7. 7. Sakaguc hi R, Do uglas W , Pete rs M. Cur ing Light Per for ma nce a nd Polymerization of Composite Restorative Materials. J Dent 1992;20(3):183-188.
8. 8. Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites: An In Vitro Assessment of Their Mechanical Performance. Oper Dent 2013;38(6):618-625.

9. 9. Park J, Chang J, Ferracane J, Lee IB. How Should Composite Be Layered to Reduce Shrinkage Stress: Incremental or Bulk Filling? Dent Mater 2008;24(11):1501-1505.
10. 10. Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light Transmittance and Micro-Mechanical Properties of Bulk Fill vs. Conventional Resin Based Composites. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(8):1991-2000.
11. 11. YK L. Influence Of Filler On The Difference Between the Transmitted and Reflected Colors of Experimental Resin Composites. Dent Mat 2008;24(9):1243- 1247.
12. 12. N Ilie KS. Curing Behaviour of High-Viscosity Bulk-Fill Composites. J Dent 2014;42(8):977-985.
13. 13. Feilzer A, De Gee A, Davidson C. Setting Stress In Composite Resin in Relation To Configuration Of The Restoration. J Dent Res 1987;66(11):1636-1639.
14. 14. Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömec , Koray F. Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Ormocer And Nanofill Composite with and without a Flowable Liner. J Adhes Dent 8(2):119-26.
15. 15. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Bulk‐Filled Posterior Resin Restorations Based on Stress‐Decreasing Resin Technology: A Randomized, Controlled 6‐ ear Evaluation. Eur J Oral Sci 2017;125(4):303-309.
16. 16. Heck K, Manhart J, Hickel R, Diegritz C. Clinical Evaluation Of The Bulk Fill Composite Quixfil In Molar Class I And II Cavities: 10-Year Results Of A Rct. Dent Mater. 2018;34(6):e138-e147.
17. 17. Wilson M, Cowan A, Randall R, Crisp R, Wilson N. A Practice-Based, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of a New Resin Composite Restorative: One- Year Results. Operative Dentistry 2002;27(5):423-429.
18. 18. Van D jken JW, Hörstedt P. Effect of the Use of Rubber Dam Versus Cotton Rolls On Marginal Adaptation of Composite Resin Fillings to AcidEtched Enamel. Acta Odontol Scand 1987;45(5):303 308.
19. 19. Cochran MA, Miller CH, Sheldrake MA. The Efficacy of the Rubber Dam as a Barrier to the Spread of Microorganisms During Dental Treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;119(1):141-144.
20. 20. Huth K, Manhart J, Selbertinger A, Paschos E, Kaaden C, Kunzelmann K, et al. 4-Year Clinical Performance and Survival Analysis of Class I and II Compomer Restorations in Permanent Teeth. Am J Dent 2004;17(1):51-55.
21. 21. A lb uq uerq ue N LG, de Souza AM B, de Moraes MD R, Me ndo nça JS, Rodrigues LKA, Santiago SL. Four-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Oxalic Acid Pretreatment in Restorations of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20(2):199-205.
22. 22. Jandt K, Mills R, Blackwell G, Ashworth S. Depth of Cure and Compressive Strength of Dental Composites Cured with Blue Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). Dent Mater 2000;16(1):41-47.
23. 23. Ölmez A, K sbet S. Kompoz t Rez n Restorasyonlarda B t rme ve Polisaj İşlemler ndek en Gel şmeler. Acta Odontol Turc 2013;30(2):115-122.
24. 24.Köhler, B., Rasmusson, C. G., & Ödman, P. A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. Journal of dentistry2000;28(2):11-116.
25. 25. Brunthaler A, Kön g F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longev ty of d rect resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7:63-70.
26. 26.da Rosa Rodolpho, P. A., Cenci, M. S., Donassollo, T. A., Loguércio, A. D., & Demarco, F. F. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations:
27. 17-year findings. Journal of dentistry2006;34(7):427-435.27. Cana l GD, Ign c o SA, Rac hed RN, Souza EM. One-Yea r Clinic a l Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Flowable vs. Regular Nanofilled Composite in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2018:1-9.
28. 28. Talukder MFH, Hossain M, Moral MAA. Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite Resin and Layered Composite Resin Restoration in Class I Cavity of Permanent Molar Teeth. BSMMU J;11(1):29-33.
29. 29. Atabek D, Aktaş N, Sakaryal D, Ban M. Two-Year Clinical Performance of Sonic-Resin Placement System in Posterior Restorations. Quintessence Int 2017;48(9):743-751.
30. 30. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Technique Sensitivity of Dentin Bonding: Effect of Application Mistakes on Bond Strength and Marginal Adaptation. Oper Dent 2000;25(4):324-330.
31. 31. Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-Year Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Clinical Performance and Wear of a Nanocomposite Versus a Hybrid Composite. Dent Mater 2009;25(11):1302-1314.
32. 32. Chen M-H. Update on Dental Nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010;89(6):549- 560.