Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars.
Am J Dent. 2006 Dec; 19(6):359-63.AJ

Abstract

PURPOSE

To test the null-hypothesis that there was no difference in the survival percentages of Class II composite restorations in primary teeth produced through either ART or conventional approaches after 2 years.

METHODS

157 children with 325 Class II cavitated dentin lesions were included in a split-mouth study design. A computer program randomly assigned cavitated dentin lesions to treatment groups stratified for gender, operator, upper/lower jaw and left/right side of the mouth. Three operators placed resin composite (Pertac II) restorations using a self-etch adhesive (Prompt L-Pop). Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations after 0.5, 1 and 2 years using the modified Ryge criteria. A modification of the actuarial survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) observed between the cumulative survival percentages of Class II composite restorations in primary teeth produced by the two approaches after 2 years (ART: 34.9% +/- 4.7%; conventional: 35.1% +/- 4.7%). The cumulative survival percentages of ART and conventional Class II restorations of one of the operators were lower than for ART restorations of the other two operators and for conventional restorations of one of the operators (P < or = 0.001). The main reason for Class II composite restorations to fail over the 2-year period was complete loss of retention; ART: 75%; conventional: 77%. The null-hypothesis was accepted as there was no difference in the cumulative survival percentages of ART and conventional Class II composite restorations in primary teeth after 2 years. It appears that the low survival results obtained may have been caused by poor bonding of the self-etch adhesive.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Ege University, School of Dentistry, Izmir, Turkey.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17212078

Citation

Eden, Ece, et al. "Survival of Self-etch Adhesive Class II Composite Restorations Using ART and Conventional Cavity Preparations in Primary Molars." American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 19, no. 6, 2006, pp. 359-63.
Eden E, Topaloglu-Ak A, Frencken JE, et al. Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars. Am J Dent. 2006;19(6):359-63.
Eden, E., Topaloglu-Ak, A., Frencken, J. E., & van't Hof, M. (2006). Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars. American Journal of Dentistry, 19(6), 359-63.
Eden E, et al. Survival of Self-etch Adhesive Class II Composite Restorations Using ART and Conventional Cavity Preparations in Primary Molars. Am J Dent. 2006;19(6):359-63. PubMed PMID: 17212078.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars. AU - Eden,Ece, AU - Topaloglu-Ak,Asli, AU - Frencken,Jo E, AU - van't Hof,Martin, PY - 2007/1/11/pubmed PY - 2007/2/8/medline PY - 2007/1/11/entrez SP - 359 EP - 63 JF - American journal of dentistry JO - Am J Dent VL - 19 IS - 6 N2 - PURPOSE: To test the null-hypothesis that there was no difference in the survival percentages of Class II composite restorations in primary teeth produced through either ART or conventional approaches after 2 years. METHODS: 157 children with 325 Class II cavitated dentin lesions were included in a split-mouth study design. A computer program randomly assigned cavitated dentin lesions to treatment groups stratified for gender, operator, upper/lower jaw and left/right side of the mouth. Three operators placed resin composite (Pertac II) restorations using a self-etch adhesive (Prompt L-Pop). Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations after 0.5, 1 and 2 years using the modified Ryge criteria. A modification of the actuarial survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) observed between the cumulative survival percentages of Class II composite restorations in primary teeth produced by the two approaches after 2 years (ART: 34.9% +/- 4.7%; conventional: 35.1% +/- 4.7%). The cumulative survival percentages of ART and conventional Class II restorations of one of the operators were lower than for ART restorations of the other two operators and for conventional restorations of one of the operators (P < or = 0.001). The main reason for Class II composite restorations to fail over the 2-year period was complete loss of retention; ART: 75%; conventional: 77%. The null-hypothesis was accepted as there was no difference in the cumulative survival percentages of ART and conventional Class II composite restorations in primary teeth after 2 years. It appears that the low survival results obtained may have been caused by poor bonding of the self-etch adhesive. SN - 0894-8275 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17212078/Survival_of_self_etch_adhesive_Class_II_composite_restorations_using_ART_and_conventional_cavity_preparations_in_primary_molars_ L2 - https://medlineplus.gov/toothdecay.html DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -