A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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

A 24-month clinical evaluation of composite resins with different viscosity and chemical compositions: a randomized clinical trial. | LitMetric

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical performance of two methacrylate-based flowable composites and an ormocer-based flowable composite in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in adult participants.

Method And Materials: In total, 183 restorations were performed on NCCLs. All cavities were restored using a universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco) with selective enamel etching and with one of the three evaluated flowable composites (n = 61): low-viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Flow, LV), high-viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Heavy Flow, HV), and an ormocer-based flowable composite (Admira Fusion Flow, ORM). All restorations were evaluated using FDI and USPHS criteria after 24 months. Kruskall-Wallis analysis of variance rank (α = .05) was used for statistical analysis.

Results: After 24 months of clinical evaluation, 16 restorations were lost (LV = 3, HV = 10, ORM = 3) and the retention rates (95% confidence interval) were 95.0% for LV, 82.2% for HV, and 95.0% for ORM, with statistical differences observed between HV and LV as well as HV and ORM (P < .05). When secondary parameters were evaluated, no significant differences between groups were observed (P > .05). Thirty-three restorations (LV = 8, HV = 13, ORM = 12) showed minor marginal staining, 71 restorations (LV = 26, HV = 20, ORM = 25) presented small marginal adaptation defects, and one restoration for HV presented recurrence of caries.

Conclusion: The universal adhesive associated with the ormocer-based and methacrylate-based flowable composite showed promising clinical performance after 24 months. However, the heavy-flow restorations showed significantly more failures. (Quintessence Int 2023;54:186-199; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b3631841).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b3631841DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

flowable composite
12
clinical evaluation
8
clinical performance
8
methacrylate-based flowable
8
flowable composites
8
ormocer-based flowable
8
universal adhesive
8
methacrylate-based composite
8
composite grandioso
8
restorations orm
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!