Periodontal Outcomes of Class II Posterior Restorations Performed with Two Ormocer-Based Restorative Approaches: A Five-Year Follow-Up

Background/Objectives: In this prospective clinical follow-up study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term periodontal responses over a five-year follow-up period associated with Class II direct posterior restorations placed using two different restorative approaches. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one Class II posterior restorations in 25 patients were included. Eighteen were performed using a bulk-fill approach with Admira Fusion X-tra® (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany), whereas thirteen used the proximal wall approach with Admira Fusion® (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany). Periodontal parameters, including plaque control record, gingival bleeding index, probing depth, and clinical attachment loss, were recorded at baseline and five years using standardized periodontal examination procedures. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA. Given the limited sample size, the statistical analyses were considered exploratory. Results: The plaque control record decreased from baseline to the five-year follow-up, with a significant overall effect of time (F = 4.789, p = 0.037), while the time × restorative approach interaction was not significant (p = 0.694). The gingival bleeding index showed a slight numerical increase over the five-year period (25.52 ± 27.20% at baseline versus 27.00 ± 26.11% at five years); however, neither the effect of time (F = 0.139, p = 0.712) nor the time × restorative approach interaction (F = 0.505, p = 0.483) was statistically significant. Probing depth and clinical attachment loss remained relatively stable throughout the observation period, with no statistically significant time or interaction effects. Overall, no statistically significant time × restorative approach interactions were observed, indicating that longitudinal changes in the evaluated periodontal parameters did not differ significantly between the restorative approaches. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this exploratory clinical study, both ormocer-based restorative protocols were not associated with detectable deterioration in the evaluated periodontal parameters over the five years of follow-up.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Hygiene
Published
2026-09-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/hygiene6030057
Primary Topic
Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Periodontal Outcomes of Class II Posterior Restorations Performed with Two Ormocer-Based Restorative Approaches: A Five-Year Follow-Up

Iulia Cristina Micu, Diana Onet, Andreea Cândea, Andrada Șoancă et al.
Hygiene
Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
article

Periodontal Outcomes of Class II Posterior Restorations Performed with Two Ormocer-Based Restorative Approaches: A Five-Year Follow-Up

Iulia Cristina Micu, Diana Onet, Andreea Cândea, Andrada Șoancă, Alexandra Roman, Carmen Silvia Caloian, Alina Bârdea, Marius Negucioiu
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: In this prospective clinical follow-up study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term periodontal responses over a five-year follow-up period associated with Class II direct posterior restorations placed using two different restorative approaches. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one Class II posterior restorations in 25 patients were included. Eighteen were performed using a bulk-fill approach with Admira Fusion X-tra® (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany), whereas thirteen used the proximal wall approach with Admira Fusion® (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany). Periodontal parameters, including plaque control record, gingival bleeding index, probing depth, and clinical attachment loss, were recorded at baseline and five years using standardized periodontal examination procedures. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA. Given the limited sample size, the statistical analyses were considered exploratory. Results: The plaque control record decreased from baseline to the five-year follow-up, with a significant overall effect of time (F = 4.789, p = 0.037), while the time × restorative approach interaction was not significant (p = 0.694). The gingival bleeding index showed a slight numerical increase over the five-year period (25.52 ± 27.20% at baseline versus 27.00 ± 26.11% at five years); however, neither the effect of time (F = 0.139, p = 0.712) nor the time × restorative approach interaction (F = 0.505, p = 0.483) was statistically significant. Probing depth and clinical attachment loss remained relatively stable throughout the observation period, with no statistically significant time or interaction effects. Overall, no statistically significant time × restorative approach interactions were observed, indicating that longitudinal changes in the evaluated periodontal parameters did not differ significantly between the restorative approaches. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this exploratory clinical study, both ormocer-based restorative protocols were not associated with detectable deterioration in the evaluated periodontal parameters over the five years of follow-up.

HygieneVol. 6(3)
Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy (RO), Clinical Emergency Hospital Bucharest (RO)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.