Category: Clinical Research
Clinical Evaluation of Low- shrinkage Bioactive Material Giomer Versus Nanohybrid Resin Composite Restorations: A Three-year Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial
Tugba Toz-Akalina* (tugba.tozakalin@dent.bau.edu.tr) | Funda Öztürk-Bozkurtb | Mahmut Kusdemirb | Alev Özsoyb | Mutlu Özcanc
aBahçeşehir University, Istanbul, Türkiye
bIstanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye
cUniversity of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performances of nanohybrid and low-shrinkage bioactive resin composites.
Methods: A total of 35 patients (18 males, 17 females; mean age: 299± years old) received, randomly, 35 pairs of fillings restored with either low-shrinkage bioactive material employing Giomer technology (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or conventional nanohybrid resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Japan) in Class I and Class II cavities. Two operators made all the restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins: FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), according to each manufacturer’s instructions. Two calibrated operators evaluated the restorations two weeks after placement (baseline), after six months, one, two and three years using FDI criteria (Scores 1-5). Data were analyzed using the McNemar test (α=0.05).
Results: Mean observation period was 37.7 6.8± months (min: 35.4, max: 44.2 months). All restorations completed their 3-years follow up. All the criteria were rated mainly with high (1 or 2) scores for the restorations in both groups. Only one restoration from low shrinkage Giomer restorative group was accepted as failure due to retention loss of the restorative.
Conclusion Over the three-year follow-up, both the Giomer and the nanohybrid resin composite restorations’ performances were similar and clinically acceptable.
Keywords: clinical study, fluoride, giomer, S-PRG filler, nano-hybrid resin composite, survival
