Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics

Register      Login

VOLUME 2 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of the Postoperative Sensitivity using Two Flowable Composites in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized Blinded Clinical Trial

Saranya Dhanapal, Nivedhitha M Sureshbabu

Citation Information : Dhanapal S, Sureshbabu NM. Comparison of the Postoperative Sensitivity using Two Flowable Composites in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized Blinded Clinical Trial. J Oper Dent Endod 2017; 2 (2):55-60.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10047-0037

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative sensitivity using two flowable composites in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

Materials and methods

A total of 136 teeth were randomly divided into two groups. In group I, 68 restorations were done using Filtek Z350 XT and in group II, 68 restorations were done using G-aenial GC Universal Flo. Sensitivity was evaluated using air blast, cold water, and cold ice stick. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to record the sensitivity scores at baseline and at 2 days, 1 week, and 4 weeks after the treatment.

Results

When compared between Filtek and G-aenial groups in each test and at each time point, there was no significant difference in the reduction of postoperative sensitivity.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that there was no statistical difference in the reduction of postoperative sensitivity between group I (Filtek Z350XT) and group II (G-aenial universal flow) when used in NCCLs.

Clinical significance

There was no statistical difference in the reduction of postoperative sensitivity between two flowable composites when used in NCCLs.

How to cite this article

Dhanapal S, Sureshbabu NM. Comparison of the Postoperative Sensitivity using Two Flowable Composites in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized Blinded Clinical Trial. J Oper Dent Endod 2017;2(2):55-60.


PDF Share
  1. Analysis of the abfraction lesions formation mechanism by the finite element method. Acta Inform Med 2014 Aug;22(4):241-245.
  2. Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: two-year results. Oper Dent 2007 Jul-Aug;32(4):313-321.
  3. ; Robbins, JW.; Hilton, TJ.; Schwartz, RS, editors. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 3rd ed. Chicago (IL): Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.; 2006.
  4. Effectiveness of various medications on postoperative pain following complete instrumentation. J Endod. 1994 Jul;20(7):345-354.
  5. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results. Am J Dent 2001 Jun;14(3):153-156.
  6. Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Nov;29(11):1037-1041.
  7. Esthetic noncarious Class V restorations: a case report. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005 Sep;17(5):275-284.
  8. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003 May-Jun;28(3):215-235.
  9. One-year clinical evaluation of five single-step selfetch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater J 2007 Jan;26(1):14-20.
  10. Flowable resin composites as “filled adhesives": literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999 Apr;30(4):249-257.
  11. Two-year clinical evaluation of two dentine-adhesive systems in cervical lesions. J Dent 1993 Aug;21(4):195-202.
  12. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990 Jun;69(6):1240-1243.
  13. A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2012 Feb;16(1):129-137.
  14. Three-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Eur J Oral Sci 2011 Dec;119(6):511-516.
  15. Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions. Eur J Oral Sci 2005 Dec;113(6):512-518.
  16. Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations? J Adhes Dent 2013 Feb;15(1):27-32.
  17. Postoperative sensitivity in Class V composite restorations: comparing soft start vs. constant curing modes of LED. J Conserv Dent 2011 Jan;14(1):76-79.
  18. Influence of acid etching and enamel beveling on the 6-month clinical performance of a self-etch dentin adhesive. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2004 Jan;25(1):33-34, 36-38, 40 passim, quiz 46-47.
  19. Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months. Am J Dent 2005 Apr;18(2):135-140.
  20. One year clinical evaluation of class V composite restoration using two different placement techniques. MDJ 2009;6(3):218-223.
  21. Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater 2010 Dec;26(12):1176-1184.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.