Table 3. Clinical evaluation outcomes of different restorations.
| Table 3. Clinical evaluation outcomes of different restorations | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Evaluation Criteria |
Score | Baseline n(%) | 1-year n(%) | 2-year n(%) | 3-year n(%) | 4-year n(%) | 5-year n(%) | |||||||
| VR (33) | LX (32) | VR (31) | LX (31) | VR (27) | LX (27) | VR (25) | LX (26) | VR (24) | LX (25) | VR (23) | LX (24) | |||
| Functional properties | Retention | 1 | 33 (100) |
32 (100) |
31 (100) |
31 (100) |
25 (92.6) |
26 (96.3) |
25 (100) |
26 (100) |
23 (95.8) |
24 (96) |
22 (95.6) |
24 (100) |
| 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | 2 (7.4) |
1 (3.7) |
1 (4.2) |
1 (4) |
1 (4.3) |
|||||||||
| Marginal Adaptation |
1 | 33 (100) |
32 (100) |
18 (58.1) |
20 (62.5) |
8 (32.0) |
12 (46.2) |
9 (36.0) |
12 (46.2) |
6 (26.1) |
10 (41.7) |
6 (27.3) |
10 (41.7) |
|
| 2 | 13s (41.9) |
11s (37.5) |
16 s (64.0) |
14 s (53.8) |
16 s (64.0) |
14 s (53.8) |
17 s (73.9) |
14 s (58.3) |
16 s (72.7) |
14 s (58.3) |
||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | 1 (4) |
|||||||||||||
| Esthetic properties | Marginal Staining | 1 | 33 (100) |
32 (100) |
25 (80.6) |
26 (83.9) |
16 (64.0) |
20 (76.9) |
16 (64.0) |
20 (76.9) |
14 (60.9) |
18 (75.0) |
14 (63.7) |
18 (75.0) |
| 2 | 5 (16.1) |
3 (9.7) |
9 (36.0) |
6 (23.1) |
9 (36.0) |
6 (23.1) |
9 s (39.1) |
6 s (25.0) |
8 s (36.3) |
6 s (25.0) |
||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | 1 (3.2) |
2 (6.5) |
||||||||||||
| Surface Luster | 1 | 33 (100) |
32 (100) |
31 (100) |
29 (93.5) |
23 (92.0) |
24 (92.3) |
23 (92.0) |
24 (92.3) |
21 (91.3) |
22 (91.7) |
21 (95.5) |
22 (91.7) |
|
| 2 | 2 (6.5) |
2 (8.0) |
2 (7.7) |
2 (8.0) |
2 (7.7) |
2 (8.7) |
2 (8.3) |
1 (4.5) |
2 (8.3) |
|||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||||||
| Color Match | 1 | 33 (100) |
32 (100) |
28 (90.3) |
28 (90.3) |
20 (80.0) |
23 (88.5) |
20 (80.0) |
23 (88.5) |
18 (78.3) |
21 (87.5) |
18 (81.8) |
21 (87.5) |
|
| 2 | 3 (9.7) |
3 (9.7) |
5 (20.0) |
3 (11.5) |
5 (20.0) |
3 (11.5) |
5s (21.7) |
3 (12.5) |
4s (18.2) |
3 (12.5) |
||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||||||
| Biological properties | Postoperative Sensitivity | 1 | 33 (100) |
32 (100) |
31 (100) |
31 (100) |
25 (100) |
26 (100) |
25 (100) |
26 (100) |
23 (100) |
24 (100) |
22 (100) |
24 (100) |
| 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||||||
| Recurrence of caries | 1 | 33 (100) |
32 (100) |
31 (100) |
31 (100) |
25 (100) |
26 (100) |
25 (100) |
26 (100) |
23 (100) |
24 (100) |
22 (100) |
24 (100) |
|
| 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||||||
|
sIndicates significant difference in comparison with baseline according to Cochran’s Q test fallowed by McNemar's test (p<0.05) VR: Vertise Flow, LX: Luxa Flow. The outcomes were scored as follows: (1) clinically excellent/very good, (2) clinically good, (3) clinically sufficient/satisfactory, (4) clinically unsatisfactory, and (5) clinically poor. | ||||||||||||||