Comparación del comportamiento clínico a 6 meses entre dos resinas bulk-fill y una resina convencional en lesiones cervicales no cariosas
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
2017
Profesor/a Guía
Facultad/escuela
Idioma
es
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Andrés Bello
Nombre de Curso
Licencia CC
Licencia CC
Resumen
Objetivo: Evaluar el comportamiento clínico a 6 meses de dos resinas Bulk-Fill (RBK), según criterios FDI en lesiones cervicales.
Materiales y métodos: 51 pacientes con 3 lesiones cervicales fueron distribuidos aleatoriamente como Grupo TN: 51 restauraciones con Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, Grupo FBK: 51 restauraciones con Filtek Bulk-Fill y Grupo control Z350: 51 restauraciones con Filtek Z350XT. El proceso de restauración fue con aislamiento absoluto. Se realizó acondicionamiento con ácido ortofosfórico al 37% por 20 segundos en esmalte, se lavó, secó y se aplicó adhesivo Single Bond Universal para Z350 y FBK, y Tetric N-Bond Universal para TN. En TN y FBK se aplicó un incremento hasta 4mm y en Z350 se aplicó incrementos hasta 2 mm. Un operador calibrado (Kappa>0.8) evaluó las restauraciones a los 6 meses mediante criterios FDI (Tinción marginal (TM), fractura y retención (FR), adaptación marginal (AM), sensibilidad postoperatoria (S), caries). Para la comparación entre baseline-6 meses se utilizó Wilcoxon y la comparación de los 3 grupos a 6 meses test Kruskal-Wallis (significancia de 95%).
Resultados: Al control asistieron 46 pacientes (n= 138). En el parámetro TM fue evaluado 2 solo un 8,7% en Z350, 2,2% en FBK, y 2,2% en TN. Para AM fue 4,3% en Z350, 2,2% en FBK, 0% en TN. Para S fue 2.2% en Z350 y 4,3 FBK. Para caries y FR el 100% fue evaluado con 1. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p>0.05) entre los 3 grupos.
Conclusión: No existe diferencia significativa en el comportamiento clínico a 6 meses entre los 3 grupos de resinas en todos los parámetros según criterios FDI.
Objetive: To evaluate the clinical performance at 6 months of two Bulk-Fill resins (RBK), according to FDI criteria in cervical lesions. Materials and method: 51 patients with 3 cervical lesions were distributed randomly as TN Group: 51 restorations with Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, FBK Group: 51 restorations with Filtek Bulk-Fill and Control Group Z350: 51 restorations with Filtek Z350XT. The restoration process was with absolute isolation. Conditioning was carried out with 37% orthophosphoric acid for 20 seconds in enamel, washed, dried and applied Single Bond Universal adhesive for Z350 and FBK, and Tetric N-Bond Universal for TN. In TN and FBK an increase was applied up to 4mm and in Z350 increments up to 2mm were applied. A calibrated operator (Kappa> 0.8) evaluated the restorations at 6 months using FDI criteria (marginal staining (TM), fracture and retention (FR), marginal adaptation (AD), postoperative sensitivity (S), caries). For comparison between baseline-6 months Wilcoxon was used and the comparison of the 3 groups to 6 months Kruskal-Wallis test (95% significance). Results: The control was attended by 46 patients (n = 138). In the TM parameter, only 2.87% were evaluated in Z350, 2.2% in FBK, and 2.2% in TN. For AM it was 4.3% in Z350, 2.2% in FBK, 0% in TN. For S it was 2.2% in Z350 and 4.3% FBK. For caries and FR 100% was evaluated with 1. There was no significant difference between the groups (p >0,05). Conclusion: The two Bulk-Fill composite-resin cervical restorations were no had significant difference in clinical performance compared with the nanofilled control restorations evaluated by FDI criteria after 6 months.
Objetive: To evaluate the clinical performance at 6 months of two Bulk-Fill resins (RBK), according to FDI criteria in cervical lesions. Materials and method: 51 patients with 3 cervical lesions were distributed randomly as TN Group: 51 restorations with Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, FBK Group: 51 restorations with Filtek Bulk-Fill and Control Group Z350: 51 restorations with Filtek Z350XT. The restoration process was with absolute isolation. Conditioning was carried out with 37% orthophosphoric acid for 20 seconds in enamel, washed, dried and applied Single Bond Universal adhesive for Z350 and FBK, and Tetric N-Bond Universal for TN. In TN and FBK an increase was applied up to 4mm and in Z350 increments up to 2mm were applied. A calibrated operator (Kappa> 0.8) evaluated the restorations at 6 months using FDI criteria (marginal staining (TM), fracture and retention (FR), marginal adaptation (AD), postoperative sensitivity (S), caries). For comparison between baseline-6 months Wilcoxon was used and the comparison of the 3 groups to 6 months Kruskal-Wallis test (95% significance). Results: The control was attended by 46 patients (n = 138). In the TM parameter, only 2.87% were evaluated in Z350, 2.2% in FBK, and 2.2% in TN. For AM it was 4.3% in Z350, 2.2% in FBK, 0% in TN. For S it was 2.2% in Z350 and 4.3% FBK. For caries and FR 100% was evaluated with 1. There was no significant difference between the groups (p >0,05). Conclusion: The two Bulk-Fill composite-resin cervical restorations were no had significant difference in clinical performance compared with the nanofilled control restorations evaluated by FDI criteria after 6 months.
Notas
Tesis (Cirujano Dentista)
Palabras clave
Restauración Dental, Resinas Compuestas