Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Context: In pediatric clinic practice, bulk fill composite is gaining importance for shortened clinical time with a limited shrinkage.
Aims: The present study evaluated the 1 year clinical performance of bulk fill composite and conventional composite material in occlusal caries of primary molars.
Settings And Design: The study was designed as randomized single blind clinical trial and a total of 160 restorations were placed in the cavities of the 80 patients.
Materials And Methods: Each patient received two restorations: one with Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN 55144, USA); the other restored with Filtek Bulk-Fill Restorative (FBF) (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA). All restorations were clinically evaluated after baseline, 6 months, and 1 year in terms of retention, color matching, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, anatomic form, and postoperative sensitivity.
Statistical Analysis Used: Besides the descriptive statistical methods, the Friedman test and the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks were used.
Results: Bulk fill was found to be worse compared to control with regard to postoperative sensitivity at baseline without statistical significance (P > 0.05). All of the evaluated restorations were retained and were still in function after 1 year (P > 0.05). With respect to marginal discoloration and marginal integrity, there were no significant differences between bulk fill and composite restorations at all intervals (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Based on this short term data, restoration of Class I cavities with both bulk fill and conventional composite restorations can be performed successfully. Postoperative sensitivity can be an issue with the restorations completed with Bulk fill restorative.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_151_18 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!