Comparison of two composite resin materials for splinting of dental luxation injuries: A double blind randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Dental traumatology 2024-02, Vol.40 (1), p.44-53
• Main Authors: Raza, Misbah Ali, Khan, Javeria Ali, Akhtar, Hira, Farooqui, Waqas Ahmed, Faraz, Hira, Hasan, Arshad
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adhesives; Clinical trials; Composite materials; composite resin; Composite Resins; Dental restorative materials; dental trauma; Humans; Joint Dislocations; Mobility; periodontal splint; Splints; Teeth; Tooth Avulsion - therapy; tooth luxation; Tooth Mobility - therapy
• ISSN: 1600-4469; 1600-9657
• DOI: 10.1111/edt.12883

Background/Aim Luxation is a common traumatic dental injury treated with a wire composite (WC) splint. However, bulk‐fill flowable composite and conventional packable composite have not been compared for retaining these splints. Therefore, the objectives of this randomized controlled trial were (1) to compare retention of WC splints, and (2) to compare adhesive point dimension, application and removal time, and effect on tooth mobility between the two WC splints. Materials and Methods In this parallel group, non‐inferiority double blind randomized controlled trial, a total of 90 patients, aged 16–50 years participated. They were randomly allocated into two groups, the packable composite group (PC) n = 45 and the bulk‐fill flowable composite group (BF‐FC) n = 45 by lottery method. Following measurements were taken at the splint application appointment. Horizontal tooth mobility measured via Periotest, splint application time, and frontal images of splinted teeth to measure the percentage composite adhesive point area. After 2 weeks, splints were visually inspected for retention, whereas mobility and removal times were also recorded. Statistically, comparisons were made using independent samples sample T‐test, Fisher's exact test, and Mann–Whitney U at p ≤ .05. Results A total of 88 patients with 156 luxated teeth completed the trial, as two patients were lost to follow‐up. Two patients in the PC group reported with completely de‐bonded splints while none de‐bonded in the BF‐FC group. Both groups were similar in terms of splint retention (p = .352), reduction of mobility (p = .426), and splint removal times (p = .372). The BF‐FC group performed significantly better in adhesive point dimension percentages (p