Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorEden, Ece
dc.contributor.authorTopaloglu-Ak, Asli
dc.contributor.authorFrencken, Jo E.
dc.contributor.authorvan't Hof, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T19:39:51Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T19:39:51Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose : 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 <= 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.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage363en_US
dc.identifier.issn0894-8275
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid17212078en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage359en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/40207
dc.identifier.volume19en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000242681900008en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMosher & Linder, Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.titleSurvival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molarsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu