Scholarlink

Objective <p>This prospective randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate and compare the three-year clinical performance of short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) and indirect laboratory (lab) composite with that of a microhybrid resin composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities, with marginal adaptation defined as the primary outcome.</p> Materials and methods <p>Thirty-three participants, each exhibiting 3 posterior carious teeth (Class I or II, ICDAS 4 or 5) under stable occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 99 restorations (33 for each material) were placed as follows: SFRC (everX Posterior), indirect lab composite (SR Nexco), and microhybrid resin composite (G-aenial Posterior). Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline (1 week), 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years by two blinded examiners utilizing FDI criteria, with marginal adaptation designated as the primary outcome, whereas other FDI criteria were assessed as secondary outcomes. Intragroup differences across follow-ups were assessed using Friedman and Wilcoxon post-hoc tests, while intergroup comparisons were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The significance level was set at α = 0.05.</p> Results <p>Twenty-eight patients with a total of 84 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 3-years with 84.45% recall rates. The outcomes revealed no statistically significant differences among SFRC, indirect lab composite, and microhybrid resin composite restorations for the assessed criteria (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). The clinical success rates for SFRC (everX Posterior), indirect lab composite (SR Nexco), and microhybrid resin composite (G-aenial Posterior) were 100%, 100%, and 96.43%, respectively.</p> Conclusion <p>After a three-year follow-up period, both SFRC and indirect lab composite demonstrated acceptable clinical performance, comparable to that of microhybrid resin composite, as evaluated by the FDI criteria.</p> Clinical significance <p>Although the tested resin composite materials revealed similar clinical behavior in posterior teeth, the prolonged treatment time and higher cost of indirect lab composite favor the direct approach.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Clinical performance of short fiber-reinforced and indirect resin composites in class I and class II restorations: A three-year randomized clinical trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月21日

查看全文
  • Rasha M. Salama,
  • Hamdi H. Hamama,
  • Salah H. Mahmoud

摘要

Objective

This prospective randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate and compare the three-year clinical performance of short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) and indirect laboratory (lab) composite with that of a microhybrid resin composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities, with marginal adaptation defined as the primary outcome.

Materials and methods

Thirty-three participants, each exhibiting 3 posterior carious teeth (Class I or II, ICDAS 4 or 5) under stable occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 99 restorations (33 for each material) were placed as follows: SFRC (everX Posterior), indirect lab composite (SR Nexco), and microhybrid resin composite (G-aenial Posterior). Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline (1 week), 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years by two blinded examiners utilizing FDI criteria, with marginal adaptation designated as the primary outcome, whereas other FDI criteria were assessed as secondary outcomes. Intragroup differences across follow-ups were assessed using Friedman and Wilcoxon post-hoc tests, while intergroup comparisons were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The significance level was set at α = 0.05.

Results

Twenty-eight patients with a total of 84 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 3-years with 84.45% recall rates. The outcomes revealed no statistically significant differences among SFRC, indirect lab composite, and microhybrid resin composite restorations for the assessed criteria (p > 0.05). The clinical success rates for SFRC (everX Posterior), indirect lab composite (SR Nexco), and microhybrid resin composite (G-aenial Posterior) were 100%, 100%, and 96.43%, respectively.

Conclusion

After a three-year follow-up period, both SFRC and indirect lab composite demonstrated acceptable clinical performance, comparable to that of microhybrid resin composite, as evaluated by the FDI criteria.

Clinical significance

Although the tested resin composite materials revealed similar clinical behavior in posterior teeth, the prolonged treatment time and higher cost of indirect lab composite favor the direct approach.