RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This randomized double-blind clinical trial compared the performance of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel, after 1-year follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirteen volunteers requiring at least two posterior composite restorations were selected. Twenty-nine cavities were performed, comprising 14 without bevel (butt joint) and 15 with bevel preparation of the enamel cavosurface angle. All cavities were restored with simplified adhesive system (Adper Single Bond) and composite resin (Filtek P60). A halogen light curing unit was used through the study. Restorations were polished immediately. Analysis was carried out at baseline, after 6 months and after 1 year by a calibrated evaluator (Kappa), according to the FDI criteria. Data were statistically analyzed by Mann-Whitney test (p <0.05). RESULTS: Beveled and non-beveled cavities performed similarly after 1 year follow-up, regarding to fractures and retention, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, surface luster and anatomic form. However, for surface and marginal staining, beveled cavities showed significantly better performance (p<0.05) than butt joint restorations. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the restorations were acceptable after 1 year, but restorations placed in cavities with marginal beveling showed less marginal staining than those placed in non-beveled cavities.
Assuntos
Resinas Compostas/uso terapêutico , Preparo da Cavidade Dentária/métodos , Restauração Dentária Permanente/métodos , Adulto , Cimentos Dentários/uso terapêutico , Adaptação Marginal Dentária , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Propriedades de Superfície , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This randomized double-blind clinical trial compared the performance of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel, after 1-year follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirteen volunteers requiring at least two posterior composite restorations were selected. Twenty-nine cavities were performed, comprising 14 without bevel (butt joint) and 15 with bevel preparation of the enamel cavosurface angle. All cavities were restored with simplified adhesive system (Adper Single Bond) and composite resin (Filtek P60). A halogen light curing unit was used through the study. Restorations were polished immediately. Analysis was carried out at baseline, after 6 months and after 1 year by a calibrated evaluator (Kappa), according to the FDI criteria. Data were statistically analyzed by Mann-Whitney test (p <0.05). RESULTS: Beveled and non-beveled cavities performed similarly after 1 year follow-up, regarding to fractures and retention, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, surface luster and anatomic form. However, for surface and marginal staining, beveled cavities showed significantly better performance (p<0.05) than butt joint restorations. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the restorations were acceptable after 1 year, but restorations placed in cavities with marginal beveling showed less marginal staining than those placed in non-beveled cavities.
Assuntos
Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Resinas Compostas/uso terapêutico , Preparo da Cavidade Dentária/métodos , Restauração Dentária Permanente/métodos , Adaptação Marginal Dentária , Método Duplo-Cego , Cimentos Dentários/uso terapêutico , Seguimentos , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Propriedades de Superfície , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
AIM: This double-blind randomized clinical trial compared the performance of posterior composite restorations with and without bevel. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirteen volunteers requiring at least two posterior Class II restorations were selected. Twenty-nine cavity preparations were performed, comprising 14 without bevel (butt joint) and 15 with marginal beveling. All cavities were restored with a simplified adhesive system (Adper Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) and composite resin (Filtek P60, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA). A halogen light-curing unit (XL 3000, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) was used throughout the study. Restorations were polished immediately. Analysis was carried out at baseline and after six months by a calibrated evaluator (kappa), according to FDI criteria. RESULTS: The results were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p<0.05). Beveled and nonbeveled restorations performed similarly after six months in relation to fractures and retention, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, surface luster, and anatomic form. However, for surface and marginal staining, beveled restorations showed significantly better performance than butt joint restorations (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Restorations performed were acceptable after six months, but beveled restorations showed less marginal staining than nonbeveled restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bevel used in posterior composite restorations decreased the surface and marginal staining, in six-month evaluations.
