RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This 24-month, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the retention rates of a preheated thermoviscous composite resin (PHT) compared to a non-heated composite resin (NHT) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). METHODS: A total of 120 restorations were restored on NCCLs using a preheated (VisCalor bulk, Voco GmbH) and a non-heated (Admira Fusion, Voco GmbH) composite resins with 60 restorations per group. A universal adhesive in the selective enamel conditioning was applied. In the PHT group, composite was heated at 68 °C for using a bench heater. In the NHT group, no heating was employed. Both restorative materials were dispensed into caps and inserted into the NCCLs. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and after 24 months of clinical service using the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier estimation analysis for retention/fracture rate and Chi-square test for the other FDI parameters (α=0.05). RESULTS: After 24 months 108 restorations were assessed. Seven restorations were lost (two for PHT group and five for NHT group), and the retention rates (95 % confidence interval [CI]) were 96.7 % (81.5-99.9) for PHT group and 90.8 % (81.1-96.0) for NHT group, with no statistical differences between them (p > 0.05). The hazard ratio (95 % CI) was 0.52 (0.27 to 1.01), with no significant difference within groups. In terms of all other FDI parameters that were assessed, all restorations were deemed clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Both composites showed high rates of retention rates after 24 months. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical performance of the new preheated thermoviscous was found to be as good as the non-heated composite after 24-month of clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions. REGISTRATION OF CLINICAL TRIALS: RBR-6d6gxxz.
