الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 139 |  |  |
| | | from | 139 | | |
Abstract
This study was done to evaluate the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composites (Vertise Flow and Fusio Liquid Dentin) compared to flowable composite, and resin modified glass ionomer restorative cement in restoration of non carious cervical lesions for one year.
The clinical performance of restorations was evaluated regarding retention, sensitivity, marginal adaptation and marginal staining at 1 day, 3, 6, 12 months after placement using modified United States Public Health Services criteria (USPHS).
Fifteen patients suffering from non-carious cervical lesions were selected; each patient had at least 4 affected teeth to be restored with the 4 different restorative materials used in this study thus giving a total of 60 teeth.
There was significant difference between the four restorative materials. Both self-adhering flowable composites (Vertise Flow and fusio Liquid Dentin) had the lowest retention rates than the flowable composite and resin-modified glass ionomer. This was attributed to significant lower bond strength than the other.
Postoperative sensitivity was not observed in this study during the 1 year examination period. Self-adhering composites and resin modified glass ionomers are less technique sensitive than the 2-step etch and rinse flowable composites. It should be noted that there was a high restoration failure rate. The failed restoration had to be scored D according to statistical analysis, while the only remaining restoration had scored A. This explained why there were statistically significant results between the different groups.
Marginal adaptation and staining in this study showed that Tetric Evoflow had the best clinical results. Self-adhering composites also had clinically accepted marginal adaptation and superficial marginal staining (Vertise Flow and Fusio Liquid Dentin). The low percentage of self-adhering composites was due to high failure rate of the restorations which scored C. This explained why there were statistically significant results between the