ABSTRACT
Background: Dental restorations play a crucial role in preserving the structural integrity and function of posterior teeth. However, wear resistance remains a significant concern for these restorations. Materials and Methods: In this RCT, 120 participants with posterior tooth restoration needs were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A received conventional composite restorations, while Group B received NanoFilled Composite restorations. The restorations were placed according to standardized protocols. Wear resistance was assessed using a custom-designed chewing simulator, and the material wear was quantified using a profilometer. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical evaluations were also recorded at regular intervals over a 24-month follow-up period. Results: The wear resistance of the NanoFilled Composite restorations (Group B) was significantly higher than that of the conventional composite restorations (Group A) after 24 months of follow-up (P < 0.05). Profilometer measurements revealed that Group B had an average wear depth of 0.15 mm, while Group A had an average wear depth of 0.25 mm. Patient-reported outcomes indicated higher satisfaction and comfort in Group B. Clinical evaluations also demonstrated that Group B restorations had better retention and marginal integrity. Conclusion: This RCT demonstrates that NanoFilled Composite restorations exhibit superior wear resistance compared to conventional composite restorations when used in posterior teeth.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to see the incidence of cracks in root dentin after coronal flaring using various rotary instruments such as Gates Glidden (GG) drills, ProTaper Universal SX, OneFlare, and HyFlex EDM. Materials and Methods: Seventy freshly extracted premolar teeth with single canal were collected. All the teeth were randomly divided into five groups of fourteen each (n = 14), of which one group served as the control and the rest of the four groups were instrumented with GG drills, ProTaper Universal SX, OneFlare, and HyFlex EDM, respectively. Results: The GG drills resulted in a higher rate of crack formation in root dentin (P < 0.05) than the ProTaper Universal SX, OneFlare, and HyFlex EDM instruments (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of GG drills resulted in more crack formation. However, the results for the ProTaper Universal SX, OneFlare, and HyFlex EDM flaring instruments were less in terms of crack formation.
