Does Preheating Matter? A 36‐Month Randomized Controlled Trial of Non‐Carious Cervical Lesion Restorations Performed With Preheated and Non‐Preheated Composite Resins

OBJECTIVES: This split-mouth randomized equivalence-controlled trial compared the survival rate, based on material fracture and retention, of a preheated thermo-viscous composite resin (PH) and a non-heated composite resin (NH) for non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty adult participants in good general and oral health, with at least two comparable NCCLs and 20 teeth under occlusion, were eligible for the study. A total of 120 NCCLs were restored, half with VisCalor Bulk, Voco (PH), preheated to 68°C using a bench heater, and half with Admira Fusion, Voco (NH), used at room temperature. A universal adhesive was applied with a selective enamel etching approach before placement of the composite resin. Restorations were evaluated for 36 months according to the FDI World Dental Federation criteria. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and equivalence tests, with Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated by Cox models. Secondary FDI outcomes were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: After 36 months, the recall rate was 90%. Ten restorations failed, with five losses in the PH group and five in the NH group (p = 0.95). The material fracture and retention rates, with 95% CIs, were equivalent at 90.7% (83.3-98.8) for both the PH and NH groups (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference in failure risk between PH and NH (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.28-3.33). No significant difference was observed in the other secondary outcomes, and all remained clinically acceptable. CONCLUSION: Preheating makes no difference, since both composite resins showed high and equivalent survival rates above 90% after 36 months of clinical service. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Preheating did not provide additional benefits regarding fracture, retention, or other clinical outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Published
2026-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70281
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does Preheating Matter? A 36‐Month Randomized Controlled Trial of Non‐Carious Cervical Lesion Restorations Performed With Preheated and Non‐Preheated Composite Resins

Michael Willian Favoreto, Alessandro Dourado Loguércio, Letícia Caroline Condolo, Thalita de Paris Matos et al.
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Dental materials and restorations
article

Does Preheating Matter? A 36‐Month Randomized Controlled Trial of Non‐Carious Cervical Lesion Restorations Performed With Preheated and Non‐Preheated Composite Resins

Michael Willian Favoreto, Alessandro Dourado Loguércio, Letícia Caroline Condolo, Thalita de Paris Matos, Alessandra Reis
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This split-mouth randomized equivalence-controlled trial compared the survival rate, based on material fracture and retention, of a preheated thermo-viscous composite resin (PH) and a non-heated composite resin (NH) for non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty adult participants in good general and oral health, with at least two comparable NCCLs and 20 teeth under occlusion, were eligible for the study. A total of 120 NCCLs were restored, half with VisCalor Bulk, Voco (PH), preheated to 68°C using a bench heater, and half with Admira Fusion, Voco (NH), used at room temperature. A universal adhesive was applied with a selective enamel etching approach before placement of the composite resin. Restorations were evaluated for 36 months according to the FDI World Dental Federation criteria. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and equivalence tests, with Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated by Cox models. Secondary FDI outcomes were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: After 36 months, the recall rate was 90%. Ten restorations failed, with five losses in the PH group and five in the NH group (p = 0.95). The material fracture and retention rates, with 95% CIs, were equivalent at 90.7% (83.3-98.8) for both the PH and NH groups (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference in failure risk between PH and NH (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.28-3.33). No significant difference was observed in the other secondary outcomes, and all remained clinically acceptable. CONCLUSION: Preheating makes no difference, since both composite resins showed high and equivalent survival rates above 90% after 36 months of clinical service. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Preheating did not provide additional benefits regarding fracture, retention, or other clinical outcomes.

Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Universidade de São Paulo (BR), Universidade Federal do Paraná (BR), Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Dental materials and restorations
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.