A comparative clinical study of the self-adhering flowable composite resin vertise flow and the traditional flowable composite resin premise flowable

Abstract

Background. The aim of this research was to carry out a comparative clinical study of a self-adhesive, light-curing composite material called Vertise Flow and a traditional flow material called Premise flowable used in combination with dedicated bonding systems. In order to standardize the clinical environment, the stability of oral hygiene (analyzed with the oral hygiene index and the approximal plaque index) was taken into consideration. Methods. The study involved 37 patients with 64 fillings. They were distributed into three groups: 22 fillings in Group I, 22 fillings in Group II and 20 fillings in Group III. In Group I (G I), Vertise Flow material was applied without the use of an etching agent or a bonding system; in Group II (G II), Premise flowable material was applied without the use of an etching agent, but with the use of the OptiBond All-In-One seventh-generation bonding system; in Group III (G III), Premise flowable material was applied after etching and treatment of the hard tooth tissues using a fifth-generation OptiBond Solo Plus bonding system. Then, at appropriate time intervals (0, i.e., right after filling and after 6, 12 and 24 months), the fillings were subjected to clinical evaluation, conducted according to the Ryge scale criteria with the use of registration by means of a fluorescent high-intensity visible light beam produced by a camera (Vista Proof). Results. The quality of fillings performed with the use of comparable materials was subjected to clinical evaluation using the Ryge scale of fillings after 6, 12, and 24 months; the examination showed significant differences between the tested materials. The Vertise Flow material used without an etching agent or a bonding system (G I) presented the weakest results with respect to marginal adaptation and smoothness among those evaluated in this study. The intensification of the degradation continued over time until the final clinical observation at 24 months. The results confirmed that the best quality was achieved with the Premise flowable material after etching and treatment of the hard tooth tissues using a fifth-generation OptiBond Solo Plus bonding system (G III) relative to others for all time points during the observation. Conclusions. The used preparation scheme and bonding system have an impact on the final quality of the composite filling. There is a need to carry out a qualitative clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials under uniform conditions using evaluation scales.