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

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.

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 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

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Direct Composite Resin Restorations in Fractured Anterior Teeth

2015 ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Ramírez Barrantes ◽  
Edson Araujo Jr ◽  
Luiz Narciso Baratieri
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Preparation Technique ◽  
Dental Tissue ◽  
Minimally Invasive Dentistry ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Group I ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Class Iv ◽  
Resin Restorations

<p><span>he aim of this In Vivo study was to evaluate the influence of the cavosurface angle (with bevel, and no preparation), of direct composite resin restorations in previous fractured teeth after 4 years of clinical performance. The restorations were performed by a single operator, following a restorative standardized protocol. For the study were selected 24 upper central incisors with fracture or with class IV restorations with an indication of replacement. According to the restorative technique, the teeth were divided into 2 groups: group I (n = 12) Class IV Restorations with a bevel preparation technique; and group II (n = 12) Class IV Restorations performed with no preparation. The restorations were evaluated at 7 days and 4 years, by two examiners, previously calibrated using modified USPHS criteria. After 4 years, two restorations were excluded, representing 22 restorations (11 with bevel preparation, and 11 without). The Fisher test demonstrates no significant differences between groups (p &gt; 0.05). This study presents clinical evidence that the cavosurface angle configuration does not influence the clinical performance of direct composite resin restorations in fractured teeth. Thus, we recommend no preparation of the cavosurface angle to preserve sound dental tissue based on a Minimally Invasive Dentistry approach. </span></p>

scholarly journals Longevity of restorations in direct composite resin: literature review

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilia Mattar de Amôedo Campos VELO ◽  
Livia Vieira Braga Ferraz COELHO ◽  
Roberta Tarkany BASTING ◽  
Flávia Lucisano Botelho do AMARAL ◽  
Fabiana Mantovani Gomes FRANÇA
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Dental Treatment ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Resin Restorations

ABSTRACT Composite resin restorations have increased considerably in popularity and predictability, enabling the realization of a minimally invasive dental treatment. However, to obtain the success of composite resin restorations, knowledge of adhesives and the use of the technique are required, otherwise failure may appear quickly. The objective of the present work was to conduct a literature review on the clinical performance of different types of composite resins and adhesive systems with regard to longevity. For this evaluation, some characteristics of the restorations were immediately verified after they were completed and after a determined time. Characteristics such as postoperative sensitivity, color, marginal integrity, secondary caries, texture, marginal adaptation, retention, displacement, marginal discoloration and anatomical shape had their performances compared. The influence of different adhesive systems on the longevity of the restorations was also observed as a function of its fundamental importance in the union between the tooth and the restorative material. It was concluded that most restorations performed clinically acceptable when hybrid, nanoparticle or microhybrid composite resins and conventional adhesive systems were used.

scholarly journals Effects of Different Application Techniques on Nanohybrid Composite Restorations Clinical Success

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 228-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasha Al-Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Application Techniques ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Group B ◽  
Resin Restorations

Introduction:Dental composites have been used as a restorative material for a long time. However, they have their limitations.Aims:This study evaluated the effects of placement techniques on the clinical performance of class I composite resin restorations.Methods:A total of 40 patients with split-mouth design participated in this study. Each patient had two fillings according to the placement technique (either bulk or incremental packing) of the composite resin restorations. Group (A): was packed by Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill composite resin and Group (B): was incrementally packed with Tetric EvoCeram composite resin. Restorations of the teeth were evaluated on the same day, at one week, 3 months and 6 months to determine any signs of failure according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.Results:At different follow-up periods, the results showed no significant differences for retention, marginal integrity, surface stain, gingival bleeding, and secondary caries; however, there were significant differences in color match, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity.Conclusion:This study concluded that the nanohybrid resin composites demonstrated excellent clinical performance for 6 months follow up period.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document