This clinical trial aimed to compare the 1-year clinical performance of a self-cure bulk fill (Stela Capsules), a dual-cure bulk fill (Fill-Up), and a light-cure bulk fill (Tetric N-ceram bulk fill) in class II dental composite restorations
A total of 60 direct class II restorations were divided into three groups: Group I (n=20): were restored with self-cure bulk-fill (Stela capsules) with Stela primer; Group II (n=20): were restored with dual-cure bulk-fill (Fill-up) with ParaBond adhesive system; Group III (n=20): were restored with light-cure bulk-fill (Tetric N-ceram bulk fill) with Tetric N-ceram universal adhesive. Each material was applied using its manufacturer-recommended self-etch adhesive protocol. All restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline) and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using the Revised FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Comparisons of FDI criteria between the three groups and across different timepoints within each group were performed using Friedman and post-hoc Bonferroni tests. The significance level was set at p-value \< 0.05.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
20
A total of 60 direct class II restorations were divided into three groups: Group I (n=20): were restored with self-cure bulk-fill (Stela capsules) with Stela primer applied using its manufacturer-recommended self-etch adhesive protocol. All restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline) and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using the Revised FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Comparisons of FDI criteria between the three groups and across different timepoints within each group were performed using Friedman and post-hoc Bonferroni tests. The significance level was set at p-value \< 0.05.
A total of 60 direct class II restorations were divided into three groups: Group II (n=20): were restored with dual-cure bulk-fill (Fill-up) with ParaBond adhesive system applied using its manufacturer-recommended self-etch adhesive protocol. All restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline) and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using the Revised FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Comparisons of FDI criteria between the three groups and across different timepoints within each group were performed using Friedman and post-hoc Bonferroni tests. The significance level was set at p-value \< 0.05.
Faculty of dentistry, Alexandria University
Alexandria, Egypt
The functional properties of the examined restorations
All restorations were assessed clinically at 1 week (baseline) and subsequently at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, following the FDI evaluation criteria and scoring system, which indicates: Functional properties: (F1) Fracture of material and retention. (F2) Marginal adaptation. (F3) Proximal contact point. (F4) Form and contour. (F5) Occlusion and wear. Each evaluated property was scored according to the FDI criteria using the following clinical scores: Score 1: Clinically excellent/very good (VG), Score 2: Clinically good (CG), score 3: Clinically satisfactory (CS), score 4: Clinically unsatisfactory (CU), score 5: Clinically poor (PO).
Time frame: 1 year
The biological properties of the examined restorations
All restorations were assessed clinically at 1 week (baseline) and subsequently at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, following the revised FDI evaluation criteria and scoring system, which indicates: Biological properties (B1) Caries at restoration margins. (B2) Dental hard tissue defects at the restoration margin. (B3) Postoperative hypersensitivity and pulpal status. Each evaluated property was scored according to the FDI criteria using the following clinical scores: Score 1: Clinically excellent/very good (VG), Score 2: Clinically good (CG), Score 3: Clinically satisfactory (CS), Score 4: Clinically unsatisfactory (CU), Score 5: Clinically poor (PO).
Time frame: 1 year
The aesthetic properties of the examined restorations
All restorations were assessed clinically at 1 week (baseline) and subsequently at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, following the FDI evaluation criteria and scoring system, which indicates: Aesthetic properties: (A1) Surface luster and surface texture. (A2) Marginal staining. (A3) Color match. Each evaluated property was scored according to the FDI criteria using the following clinical scores: Score 1: Clinically excellent/very good (VG), Score 2: Clinically good (CG), Score 3: Clinically satisfactory (CS), Score 4: Clinically unsatisfactory (CU), Score 5: Clinically poor (PO).
Time frame: 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
A total of 60 direct class II restorations were divided into three groups: Group III (n=20): were restored with light-cure bulk-fill (Tetric N-ceram bulk fill) with Tetric N-ceram universal adhesive. Each material was applied using its manufacturer-recommended self-etch adhesive protocol. All restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline) and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using the Revised FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Comparisons of FDI criteria between the three groups and across different timepoints within each group were performed using Friedman and post-hoc Bonferroni tests. The significance level was set at p-value \< 0.05.