Assessment of the effect of experimental bleaching agent with nano‐bioactive material on postoperative sensitivity: A randomized, triple blind clinical trial

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the performance and postoperative sensitivity of a posterior resin composite with that of bonded amalgam in 40 (n = 20) large sized cavities and to evaluate whether resin composite could be an alternative for bonded amalgam. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial. Twenty patients in need of at least two posterior restorations were recruited. Authors randomly assigned one half of the restorations to receive bonded amalgam and the other half to composite restorations. Forty bonded amalgams (n = 20) and composites (n = 20) were evaluated for their performance on modified-US Public Health Service criteria and postoperative sensitivity using visual analogue scale (VAS) for 36-months. Results: Success rate of this study was 100%. First clinical alterations were rated as Bravo after 1 year in marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and surface roughness for both amalgam and composite. At the 3rd year, overall “Bravo” rated restorations were 12 for bonded amalgam and 13 for resin composites. There were no significant differences among the VAS scores of composites and bonded amalgams for all periods (P > 0.05) except for the comparisons at the 3rd year evaluation (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, both resin composite and bonded amalgam were clinically acceptable. Postoperative sensitivity results tend to decrease more in composite restorations rather than amalgams. Therefore, it was concluded that posterior resin composite can be used even in large sized cavities.

Download Full-text

Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial of Self-etching Adhesives and Selective Enamel Etching

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/15-130-c ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 41 (3) ◽

pp. 249-257 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

CE Pena ◽

JA Rodrigues ◽

C Ely ◽

M Giannini ◽

AF Reis

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

United States Public Health ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Single Step ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

One Step ◽

Nanohybrid Composite ◽

Postoperative Sensitivity

SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restoring noncarious cervical lesions with two self-etching adhesive systems applied with or without selective enamel etching. Methods: A one-step self-etching adhesive (Xeno V+) and a two-step self-etching system (Clearfil SE Bond) were used. The effectiveness of phosphoric acid selective etching of enamel margins was also evaluated. Fifty-six cavities were restored with each adhesive system and divided into two subgroups (n=28; etch and non-etch). All 112 cavities were restored with the nanohybrid composite Esthet.X HD. The clinical effectiveness of restorations was recorded in terms of retention, marginal integrity, marginal staining, caries recurrence, and postoperative sensitivity after 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months (modified United States Public Health Service). Results: The Friedman test detected significant differences only after 18 months for marginal staining in the groups Clearfil SE non-etch (p=0.009) and Xeno V+ etch (p=0.004). One restoration was lost during the trial (Xeno V+ etch; p>0.05). Conclusions: Although an increase in marginal staining was recorded for groups Clearfil SE non-etch and Xeno V+ etch, the clinical effectiveness of restorations was considered acceptable for the single-step and two-step self-etching systems with or without selective enamel etching in this 24-month clinical trial.

Download Full-text

Clinical Effects of Desensitizing Prefilled Disposable Trays in In-office Bleaching: A Randomized Single-blind Clinical Trial

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/18-149-c ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 45 (1) ◽

pp. E1-E10

Author(s):

LM Martins ◽

LA Lima e Souza ◽

E Sutil ◽

LM da Silva ◽

JOS Silva ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Color Change ◽

Absolute Risk ◽

Potassium Nitrate ◽

Clinical Effects ◽

Bleaching Agent ◽

Chi Square ◽

Peroxide Bleaching ◽

The Absolute ◽

Single Blind

SUMMARY Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the desensitizing effect of a prefilled disposable tray containing potassium nitrate and fluoride on the self-reported tooth sensitivity (TS) and the bleaching efficacy of 40% hydrogen peroxide bleaching agent used for in-office bleaching in comparison with potassium nitrate and fluoride gel applied in a conventional-delivered tray system in an equivalence clinical trial. Methods and Materials: Seventy-eight patients, with a right maxillary canine darker than A3, were selected for this single-blind (evaluators), randomized clinical trial. Teeth were bleached in two sessions with a one-week interval in between. Before in-office bleaching, the prefilled disposable tray or conventional tray containing potassium nitrate and fluoride was used for 15 minutes. Subsequently, the bleaching agent was applied in two 20-minute applications (per the manufacturer's directions) in each session. The color change was evaluated by subjective (Vita Classical and Vita Bleachedguide) and objective (Easyshade Advance Spectrophotometer) methods at baseline and 30 days after the first bleaching session. TS was recorded for up to 48 hours using a 0-10 visual analog scale. The absolute risk was evaluated by chi-square test, while the intensity of TS was evaluated by McNemar test (α=0.05). Color change in shade guide units and ΔE was analyzed by Student t-test for independent samples (α=0.05). Results: Significant whitening was observed in both groups after 30 days of clinical evaluation. The use of different methods of desensitizer in a tray did not influence the absolute risk and intensity of TS (p>0.05), although a tendency of lower risk of TS with the prefilled disposable tray containing potassium nitrate and fluoride was observed. Conclusion: The use of a prefilled disposable tray containing potassium nitrate and fluoride before the application of the in-office bleaching product did not affect the whitening degree and decreased self-reported TS when compared with a conventional-delivered tray system.

Download Full-text

Short-term effect of adhesive system on clinical performance of bulk fill composite

Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences ◽

10.20396/bjos.v21i00.8665042 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 ◽

pp. e225042

Author(s):

Vanessa Cristiane Araújo Oliveira ◽

Fernanda Piana Santos Lima de Oliveira ◽

Claudia Silami Magalhães ◽

Fabíola Belkiss Santos de Oliveira ◽

Isabella Pereira Marques ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Adhesive System ◽

High Viscosity ◽

Conventional Technique ◽

Class I ◽

Low Viscosity ◽

Group 5 ◽

Postoperative Sensitivity ◽

Group 1

Aim: Although bulk fill composites have been widely used as restorative material, there is no consensus regarding the best clinical protocol in terms of composite technique and adhesive system. Therefore, this clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of bulk fill composites for class I restorations under different protocols. Methods: A randomized clinical trial including 155 class I restorations was conducted using different adhesive systems: conventional technique (phosphoric acid + conventional three-step adhesive system) (Group 1, 2 and 3); or self-etching adhesive system (Groups 4, 5 and 6). Control groups 1 and 4 were restored with conventional composite; groups 2 and 5 with low viscosity bulk fill and conventional composite as occlusal coverage; groups 3 and 6 with high viscosity bulk fill. The FDI criteria was used for clinical evaluation at baseline and after 6 months. Results: All groups showed good clinical performance. At baseline, the adhesive system did not affect postoperative hypersensitivity. After 6 months, group 5 showed a significant reduction in color and translucency; group 6 a reduction in terms of anatomical form and for postoperative sensitivity and an improvement in patient satisfaction (p<0.05). Considering the same restorative technique, the use of the self-etching adhesive system showed a significant decrease in color and translucency (p<0.05). Conclusion: All groups showed favorable clinical performance, and promising results were found for the conventional adhesive system and high viscosity bulk fill protocol.

Download Full-text

A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/19-144-c ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 45 (5) ◽

pp. E255-E270

Author(s):

E Gomes de Albuquerque ◽

F Warol ◽

F Signorelli Calazans ◽

L Augusto Poubel ◽

S Soares Marins ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Evaluation ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Retention Rates ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Universal Adhesive ◽

Etch And Rinse ◽

Self Etch ◽

Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p>0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p>0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p>0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.

Download Full-text

A Randomized Clinical Trial of In-Office Dental Bleaching with or without Light Activation

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jcdp-11-1-17 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 17-24 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Qasem Alomari ◽

Ehsan El Daraa

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Light Activation ◽

Dental Bleaching ◽

Group A ◽

Curing Light ◽

Group B ◽

Light Group ◽

Postoperative Sensitivity

Abstract Aim The study aimed to evaluate the effect of four in-office dental bleaching methods on shade change, color stability, patient satisfaction and postoperative sensitivity. Methods and Materials Forty patients were randomly divided into four groups (n=10) according to the method of in-office bleaching used: Group A—35% hydrogen peroxide (HP); Group B—35% HP plus BriteSmile and a blue curing light; Group C—35% HP plus QuickSmile and an LED curing light; Group D—35% HP and a Zoom2 metal halide curing light. For all groups, there was only one session of bleaching with three 20-minute applications of bleaching gel. The shade was evaluated before bleaching, immediately after, and one month after treatment using a VITA Classical Shade Guide. Results Immediately after bleaching there was a significant difference in color change between the four groups, with Group B having the best results. At one month there was no difference between the four groups. Immediate postoperative sensitivity was the least in Group A and the highest for Group B. Patients in Group B were the most satisfied with the outcome of the bleaching procedure. Conclusions In general, the use of different lights for activation of an in-office bleaching agent did not affect the long-term results. Tooth sensitivity was mild and transient in the study. Patients were satisfied with in-office bleaching. Clinical Significance Using light activation with in-office bleaching seems to increase the efficacy of treatment only for a short period of time. Citation Alomari Q, Daraa EE. A Randomized Clinical Trial of In-Office Dental Bleaching with or without Light Activation. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 Jan; 11(1):017-024. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/view/volume11- issue1-alomari.

Download Full-text