Abstract:This clinical study evaluated the retention and caries protection of a flowable resin composite (Flow Line) and a flowable compomer (Dyract Flow) used in preventive resin restorations as compared to the conventional preventive resin technique which uses a resin composite (Brilliant) and a sealant (Concise). This study observed 205 permanent molars with small carious cavities less than 1.5 mm in width, which were obtained from 165 children aged 7 to 15 years. Flowable resin composite was used to treat 75 teeth, and 71 teeth were treated with flowable compomer in both cavities and caries-free fissures. For the control group, 59 teeth were treated with resin composite in cavities and sealant in caries-free fissures. The teeth were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24-month intervals. After three months, all 205 treated teeth were completely intact. After six months, 66 of the 71 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 65 of the 70 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 57 of the 58 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 12 months, 60 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 61 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 51 of the 55 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 18 months, 53 of the 61 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 54 of the 62 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 47 of the 53 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 24 months, 49 of the 58 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 45 of the 57 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 42 of the 52 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. There were no statistically significant differences in retention rates among all groups after 3, 6, 12, 18 or 24-months (p>0.05). One tooth treated with flowable resin composite and one tooth treated with flowable compomer developed caries after 18 and 24 months, respectively, resulting from partial loss at "caries-free fissures." Five teeth developed caries in the conventional preventive resin group; one after 12 months, two after 18 months and one after 24 months, due to loss at cavities. The final caries occurred after 24 months, resulting from partial loss at "caries-free fissures." The differences in caries development among the three groups were not statistically significant (p>0.05). This study suggested that flowable resin composite and flowable compomer could be used for preventive resin restorations. Meanwhile, a vigilant recall should be followed-up due to the risk of failure for flowable materials in "caries-free" fissures. The repair should be performed immediately, in case the preventive resin restoration develops a fracture or loss.

Early clinical effect of FiltekTM Z350 flowable nanocomposite in restoring dental wedge-shaped defects

The Clinical Curative Analysis of 3M FiltekTMZ350 XT for Repairing Moderate and Severe Dental Fluorosis Wedge-Shaped Defect

The effect of “bulk-fill”flowable resin in filling deep wedge-shaped defects:A randomized controlled clini-cal evaluation

Clinical Results of Dyract and Light-curing Composite for Restoration of Dental Wedge-shaped Defects

Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and universal nanocomposites in class II cavities: Five-year results of a randomized clinical split-mouth trial

Comparation of the Clinical Effects of Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Resin on the Restoration of Dental Wedge-Shaped Defects

Evaluation of the clinical curative effect and influence factors of F_(2000) Compomer with different adhesive agent for restoration of dental wedge-shaped defects

Clinical trial of restoration of deep dental wedge-shaped defects with three different methods

Clinical evaluation of Ceram.X nano-filled composite to restore anterior tooth defects in youth

Histological evaluation of three commonly used light-cured resin composite materials in the wedge-shaped defect repair of extracted teeth

Clinical Evaluation of a Flowable Resin Composite and Flowable Compomer for Preventive Resin Restorations.

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of severe wedge-shaped defective premolar restored with fiber post and composite resin

Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Comparative clinical evaluation between self‐adhesive and conventional bulk‐fill composites in class II cavities: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical study

Clinical performance and wear resistance of milled resin composite material versus direct nanohybrid bulk-fill resin composite in the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth over 1 year: Randomized clinical trial

Three Years Clinical Evaluation of Self-Eching Primer and Composite Resin on Posterior ClassⅠ Restorations

Evaluation of the wear resistance of new nanocomposite resin restorative materials

Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resin in Posterior Teeth: 12-Months Report

[Clinical Evaluation of Gingival Composite Resin Restoring Cervical Defects in Anterior Teeth].

[Clinical Observation of the Efficacy of Hybrid Coat Combined with Composite Resin for Restoring Hypersensitive Wedge-Shaped Defect].