Is the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth similar if restored with incremental or bulk-filling techniques? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrícia Valéria Manozzo Kunz ◽  
Letícia Maíra Wambier ◽  
Marina da Rosa Kaizer ◽  
Gisele Maria Correr ◽  
Alessandra Reis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. E31-E41 ◽  
Author(s):  
AR Cetin ◽  
N Unlu ◽  
N Cobanoglu
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Indirect Composite ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Clinical Conditions ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Aim: To assess the clinical efficacy of posterior composite resin restorations placed directly and indirectly in posterior teeth after five years. Materials and Methods: A total of 108 cavities in 54 patients were restored with three direct composite resins (Filtek SupremeXT [FSXT], Tetric Evo Ceram [TEC], AELITE Aesthetic [AA]) and two indirect composite resins (Estenia [E] and Tescera ATL [TATL]). All restorations were evaluated by two examiners using the United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and five years after placement. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher exact and McNemar χ2 tests. Results: At baseline, 4% (five) of the restored teeth presented postoperative sensitivity; however, only one of them (a member of the E group) required canal treatment and replacement after two years. At the five-year evaluation, all restorations were retained, with Alpha ratings at 100%. Only one tooth (in the TEC group) required replacement after three years due to secondary caries. Color match, surface texture, and marginal integrity were predominantly scored as Alpha after five years for all groups. After that time, marginal discoloration was scored as Alpha in 64% of AE restorations, 70% of TATL restorations, 73% of E restorations, and 87% of FSXT restorations. There were no Charlie scores recorded for any of the restorative systems. Conclusions: Under controlled clinical conditions, indirect composite resin inlays and direct composite resin restorations exhibited an annual failure rate of 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively, after five years. Therefore, the investigated materials showed acceptable clinical performance, and no significant differences were found among them.

scholarly journals Comparison of Self-Etching Adhesives and Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives on the Failure Rate of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basílio Rodrigues Vieira ◽  
Eugênia Lívia de Andrade Dantas ◽  
Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti ◽  
Bianca Marques Santiago ◽  
Frederico Barbosa de Sousa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

AbstractThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis on the comparison of self-etching adhesives and etch-and-rinse adhesives with respect to the failure rate of posterior composite resin restorations. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017078015), following PRISMA recommendations and PICO search strategy. Literature search was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library through July 2021. Six studies from five randomized clinical trials were included in the qualitative synthesis. The funnel plot detected important bias (all studies out of the funnel area). The meta-analysis showed a positive summary Cohen H effect size of 0.406 (95% CI: 0.100; 0.713, p = 0.009), favoring etch-and-rinse adhesives. The total number of failures (including restorations that required replacement and those that did not require replacement) were attributed to either marginal adaptation (five studies) or marginal staining (one study). A very low certainty of the evidence was obtained through GRADE analysis. In conclusion, current available evidence indicates that etch-and rinse adhesives performed better (with a low effect size) than self-etching adhesives in terms of failure rates in posterior composite restorations.

Effect of enamel bevel on retention of cervical composite resin restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 777-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Schroeder ◽  
Alessandra Reis ◽  
Issis Luque-Martinez ◽  
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio ◽  
Danielle Masterson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

scholarly journals Clinical performance of direct composite resin restorations in a full mouth rehabilitation for patients with severe tooth wear: 5.5-year results.

2021 ◽  
pp. 103743
Author(s):  
Shamir B. Mehta ◽  
Verônica P. Lima ◽  
Ewald M. Bronkhorst ◽  
Luuk Crins ◽  
Hilde Bronkhorst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Tooth Wear ◽  
Full Mouth Rehabilitation ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth: Effect of Adhesive Systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. E30-E37 ◽  
Author(s):  
RH Sundfeld ◽  
RS Scatolin ◽  
FG Oliveira ◽  
LS Machado ◽  
RS Alexandre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
One Year

SUMMARY This clinical study assessed the performance of posterior composite resins applied with the Adper™ Single Bond Plus (SB) and Adper™ Scotchbond SE (SE) adhesive systems and Filtek™ Supreme Plus composite resin, using modified US Public Health Service criteria. A total of 97 restorations were placed in posterior teeth by two calibrated operators. Application of the materials followed manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline and after one year. Statistical analyses were conducted using the proportion test at a significance level of 5% (p<0.05). All the restorations evaluated (ie, 100%) received an alpha rating for the criteria of marginal discoloration and marginal integrity at baseline. At one year, for marginal discoloration, 64.6% of SB and 61.2% of SE received an alpha rating. For marginal integrity, 72.9% of SB and 77.6% of SE received an alpha rating. The other restorations received bravo ratings for both criteria. None of the teeth that received the restorative systems presented caries lesions around the restorations. A total of eight teeth presented postoperative sensitivity one week after baseline, five with SB and three with SE; the symptom had disappeared one year later. One year later, composite resin restorations using either adhesive system showed satisfactory clinical performance.

A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E32-E42 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Balkaya ◽  
S Arslan
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. Methods and Materials: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Results: Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p<0.05). Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

scholarly journals Clinical performance of class I occlusal composite resin restorations: a multicenter double-blinded randomized clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Bruno Mendonça Lucena De Veras ◽  
Geórgia Pires dos Santos Menezes ◽  
Hugo Leonardo Mendes Barros ◽  
Marcelya Chrystian Moura Rocha ◽  
Aditonio De Carvalho Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Dental Restoration ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Class I ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the 6-month clinical performance of class I occlusal composite resin restorations through a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. <strong>Material e Métodos: </strong>Two hundred and eighty class I occlusal restorations were performed in 70 patients (aged between 17 to 50 years).  The restorations were divided into four groups: G1 (Filtek P60/3M ESPE); G2 (Rok/SDI); G3 (Filtek™ P90/3M ESPE); G4 (Evolux/Dentsply). Two pre-calibrated dental practitioners performed and evaluated the restorative procedures regarding to color match, marginal discoloration, recurrent caries, wear (anatomic form) and marginal integrity according to the USPHS criteria. <strong>Resultados: </strong>In 85.8% of the evaluated restorations was observed the ideal score (A) for color match; 91.4% for marginal discoloration; 100% for recurrent caries; 87.7% for wear (anatomic form) and 99.3% for marginal integrity.<strong> Conclusion: </strong>The composite resins used in this study presented satisfactory and similar clinical performance in a 6-month clinical evaluation.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong></p><p>Dentistry; Composite resins; Permanent dental restoration; Molar; Bicuspid.</p>

scholarly journals Eighteen-month clinical performance of composite resin restorations with two different adhesive systems for molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralization

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 1725-1733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliana Feltrin de Souza ◽  
Camila Bullio Fragelli ◽  
Fabiano Jeremias ◽  
Marco Aurélio Benini Paschoal ◽  
Lourdes Santos-Pinto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Molar Incisor Hypomineralization ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document