ISSN: 2573-8771
Authors: Kang YH*, Magnuson BE, Singh ML, Tran DL, Pagni SE, Perry RD and Kugel G
The 18-month randomized, controlled, split mouth, clinical trial have been completed. Visits include: screening, restoration placement, 6 month follow-up and 18-month follow-up. Cervical lesions were restored with giomer based BEAUTIFIL II LS (SHOFU, Kyoto, Japan) (BL) or nano technology based Filtek™ Supreme (3M, St. Paul, MN) (FS). Restorations were placed following the manufacturer’s guidelines. Clinical assessments were done by blinded examiners excluding the examiner that placed the restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to clinical criteria by Hickel, et al. including esthetic properties (surface luster, surface staining, marginal staining, color match, anatomical form), functional properties (fracture of material and retention, marginal adaptation, patient’s view) and biologic properties (recurrence of caries, tooth integrity, adjacent mucosa). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the Hickel criteria between groups. Hickel scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared differences between the two groups (BL - FS) within the same subject and then ranked the differences. Only positive and negative ranks were used in the analysis. The established null hypothesis: BL and FS will perform equally in Hickel Scoring (H0: BL = FS) was not rejected as no Hickel criteria comparisons showed statistical significances. Clinical performance comparison of non-carious cervical lesion restorations between giomer and nano technology based restorative systems showed no statistical differences according to Hickel criteria with similar clinical evaluations for both restorative materials.
Keywords: Giomer; Nanohybrid; Nanofil composite; Nano technology; Dental materials; Class V restoration; Restorative dentistry; Clinical trial
