Flowable bulk-fill materials without capping for class I cavities restorations in primary molars
The comparisons were made primarily based on the treatment variants. The results showed that there were no major differences in most of the pairwise comparisons for the cases and prevalence. Apart from the treatment variants, the comparisons were also based on other criteria including Color match ,Cavosurface marginal discoloration, Marginal integrity, Postoperative sensitivity, Secondary caries, andFracture. Each of these has a score attached to it, either Yes, No or A/B/C.
Steps to reproduce
The statistical analysis began by analyzing the pairwise differences. It emerged that the similarity index was high between both treatments, the criteria, the scores, and the timeline periods. However, the absence of fracture at 6 months was different between CeramX mono+ Prime and Bond NT and SDR + Prime and Bond NT (Difference in cases = 27, difference in prevalence = 100%). This was also the case at baseline. There was also a difference in the marginal integrity at 24 months for criteria A (difference in cases = 1, difference in prevalence = 3.7%) and B (difference in cases = -1, difference in prevalence = -3.7%) between the two main treatments. This observation was similar to the presence (difference in cases = -1, difference in prevalence = -3.7%) and absence (difference in cases = 1, difference in prevalence = 3.7%) of secondary caries between the two treatments at 24 months. This result was also similar to score A (difference in cases = -1, difference in prevalence = -3.7%) and score B (difference in cases = 1, difference in prevalence = 3.7%) of surface texture between the two treatments at 18 and 24 months. Deeper analysis was conducted using the timelines for both treatments. The results shown below indicated that the time, whether baseline, 6 months, 18 months, or 24 months did not have a significant impact on the effects of the treatments as well as the criteria used (F = 0.13, p > 0.05).