This study evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of four different flowable composite materials used in Small Class I restorations in permanent molars. This double-blinded, clinical study analyzed 229 Small Class I restorations/103 children at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months with modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. The tested flowable materials were Voco Grandio Flow + Voco Solobond M, Vivadent Tetric EvoFlow + Vivadent Excite, Dentsply X-Flow + Dentsply Prime&Bond NT, and 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme XT Flow + 3M ESPE Scotchbond Universal. The retention and marginal adaptation rates were highest for Grandio Flow and X Flow materials after 36 months, resulting in the highest score of clinical acceptability at 95.3% and 97.6%, respectively. The Tetric EvoFlow and Filtek Supreme XT Flow had the same retention rate after 36 months at 88.1%. Statistical significance was found in Grandio flow material in postoperative sensitivity criteria (p = 0.021). Tetric EvoFlow showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01), color match (p = 0.004), and marginal adaptation (p = 0.042). Filtek Supreme showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01) and marginal adaptation (p < 0.001). The flowable composite materials showed excellent clinical efficacy after 36 months of their clinical usage. There was no difference among the tested flowable composite materials quality in Small Class I restorations over time.

Objectives Little is known whether specialists in different dental fields assess orofacial esthetics differently due to various focus of their interest. The aim was to find out if there is a difference in judgement of orofacial esthetics among specialists in three different fields of Dental Medicine, i.e. specialists in Prosthodontics (S-Prosthod), Periodontology (S-Perio), and Orthodontics (S-Ortho). Material and methods A total of 69 specialists (23 participants in each group) assessed the same 60 photographs of the lower third of the face of young healthy people with Angle Class I and natural teeth while smiling. Moreover, the assessed anterior teeth on the photographs of similes had to be without any restorations. The assessments were made using 7 out of 8 Items of Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES). A face profile assessment was not performed. A Likert 1-5 scale was used for assessments (1-the worst score; 5-the best score). Mean values of summary scores as well as of each OES item were calculated for each specialist for further statistical analysis. One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and Sheffe post-hoc tests were performed. Results The specialists in Periodontology gave significantly lowest scores to all 7 items related to orofacial esthetics, while the specialists in Prosthodontics gave the highest scores (p<0.05). Conclusion Assessments of orofacial esthetics differ significantly among specialists in Prosthodontics, Periodontology and Orthodontics. Further study is needed to clarify the factors which influence the judgement, and to find out if specific education in certain specialties can modify the assessment.

No abstract