RESUMO
This 72-month study compared the clinical effectiveness of a resin-based composite (RBC) (Spectrum TPH3, Dentsply Sirona) with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light Cure, SDI) in restoring cervical caries lesions (CCLs). Thirty-three patients, each with at least two CCLs, were enrolled. After caries removal, the dimensions of the cavities were recorded. In a split-mouth study design, a total of 110 restorations were randomly placed. Fifty-five restorations were placed with RBC using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Prime&Bond NT, Dentsply Sirona), while the remaining 55 were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 60, and 72 months according to modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis included Pearson Chi-square, Friedman tests, Kaplan Meier, and Logistic Regression analysis (p < 0.05). After 72 months, 47 restorations in 19 patients were evaluated (55% follow-up rate). Seventy-five percent of the RBC (n = 26) and 74% (n = 21) of the RMGIC restorations were fully retained. There were no significant differences between materials regarding retention and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). Cavity dimensions, caries activity, and retention exhibited no correlation (p > 0.05). The increase in marginal staining in both groups over time was significant (p < 0.001). RMGIC restorations exhibited higher discoloration than RBC restorations (p = 0.014). At 72 months, three secondary caries lesions were detected in both restoration groups: two RMGIC and one RBC. There were no reports of sensitivity. After 72 months, both RBC and RMGIC restorations were clinically successful, with similar retention and marginal adaptation scores. However, it is noteworthy that RMGIC restorations tend to discoloration over time compared to RBC. The trial is registered in the database of "Clinical Trials". The registration number is NCT0372-2758, October 29, 2018.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a calcium phosphate-containing-desensitizer (Teethmate Desensitizer - TD), caries type, subject age, and preoperative hypersensitivity on postoperative sensitivity (POS) after composite restorations on deep or extremely deep lesions. METHODS: 50 subjects, having two teeth with deep or extremely deep caries, participated in this study. TD was applied randomly to one tooth of each participant, and all teeth were restored with composite resin (Filtek Z250). After 1 week, POS was evaluated according to NRS (numerical rating scale) and VAS (visual analogue scale) by using participant diaries. At 6 weeks, POS was assessed considering subjects' reports. The normality of data was analyzed with Shapiro-Wilk test. For analyses, Pearson's chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test were used, and the effect sizes (ES) were calculated (α= 0.05). RESULTS: 47 of the participants completed the 6-week study. There was a small effect size noted for TD for NRS and VAS (P> 0.05, ES < 0.30). Also, there was no statistically significant difference between POS and subject age (P= 0.294, ES= 0.161), type of caries (P= 0.680, ES= 0.042) and preoperative sensitivity (P= 1.000, ES= 0.138) after the first week. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Teethmate Desensitizer had no significant effect on postoperative sensitivity occurrence with respect to caries type, subject age, and existence of preoperative sensitivity. The application of Teethmate Desensitizer demonstrated no significant relieving effect on postoperative sensitivity in deep or extremely deep cavities.