The purpose of this study was to obtain the clinical results concerning the use of two types of the new composite resin, Clearfil Bond System Type-F and Type-SC. The cavity preparation and the restoration were performed on a total of 497 primary teeth (239 anterior teeth and 258 molars) of 102 Japanese boys and 91 Japanese girls. Type-F was used in 328 cases and Type-SC in 169 cases.
The observation period lasted up to 3 years and 3 months at the longest. The marginal state (discoloration, leakage, breakage and secondary caries)and the general state (discoloration, wearing-off and breakage or falling-off) of the filling material, spontaneous or/and thermal pain of the pulp, and the inflammation of the gingiva were evaluated. The evaluation was classified into three groups - 1) “satisfactory” (no specific clinical findings),2) “poor”, and 3) “breakage”(the partial or entire falling-of of the filling material).
The results were as follows:
1. Type-F was found “satisfactory” in 237 cases (72.2%), “poor” in 32 (9.8%)and “breakage” in 59 (18.0%). Type-SC was found “satisfactory” in 141cases (83.4%), “poor” in 18 (10.7%), and “breakage” in 10 (5.9%). Type-SC was evaluated as being slightly better, especially against breakage, than Type-F.
2. Type-SC had a tendency to give better results than Type-F regardless of the restored surfaces of the tooth and the number of restored surfaces.
3. Regarding the margin of the cavity preparation, the bevel type revealed the best results with both Type-F and Type-SC.
4. The restorations under the gingival line were evaluated “poor” or “breakage”in many cases irrespective of the type used. This tendency was more obvious in Type-F.
5. The restorations without the pulp capping in Type-F were evaluated as “poor”or “breakage” in considerably fewer cases than the restrations with pulp capping.
6. Both Types showed scarcely any undesirable clinical findings.
7. Both Types revealed better results with molars than with anterior teeth. The tendency was more obvious in Type-F.
8. This study revealed that the bevel type of marginal preparation and cavity preparation above the gingival line can be recommended in order to obtain desirable clinical results using “Clearfil”.
View full abstract