Longevity of restorations in direct composite resin: literature review

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.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/10-375-c ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 37 (6) ◽

pp. E30-E37 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

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.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/19-078-c ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 45 (1) ◽

pp. E32-E42 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/12-160-c ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 38 (2) ◽

pp. E31-E41 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

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.

Download Full-text

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

Brazilian Dental Science ◽

10.14295/bds.2018.v21i3.1593 ◽

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

Objective: 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. Material e Métodos: 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. Resultados: 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. Conclusion: The composite resins used in this study presented satisfactory and similar clinical performance in a 6-month clinical evaluation.KeywordsDentistry; Composite resins; Permanent dental restoration; Molar; Bicuspid.

Download Full-text

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

Clinical Oral Investigations ◽

10.1007/s00784-016-1968-z ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 1725-1733 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

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

Download Full-text

Effect of At-home and In-office Bleaching on Marginal Microleakage in Composite Resin Restorations using Two Adhesive Systems

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2246 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 248-252 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Celso A Klein ◽

Douglas da Silva ◽

Eduardo G Reston ◽

Diana LB Borghetti ◽

Roberto Zimmer

Keyword(s):

Laser Scanning ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Laser Scanning Microscopy ◽

Confocal Laser ◽

Adhesive Systems ◽

Composite Resin Restorations ◽

Resin Restorations ◽

At Home

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this study is to assess marginal microleakage of cervical cavities restored with composite resins and two different adhesive techniques subjected to at-home and in-office bleaching. Materials and methods In this randomized, blind laboratory experiment, 60 bovine teeth recently extracted were collected and divided into six groups (n = 10 each group). The teeth received cervical cavity preparations (2 mm × 3 mm × 1 mm) with enamel margins. Two different adhesive systems were used (Single Bond 2 and Clearfil SE Bond), in addition to composite resin (Z250). Restored teeth received two different bleaching gels (Opalescence PF and Opalescence Boost). Teeth were thermocycled and analyzed under confocal laser scanning microscopy. Results No significant differences were observed (p > 0.05) in microleakage scores between the two groups not subjected to bleaching nor between the four groups that received bleaching treatment (p > 0.05), regardless of the gel and adhesive system employed. However, when comparing nonbleached with bleached teeth, those not subjected to bleaching showed statistically lower marginal microleakage scores (p < 0.05). Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Student–Newman–Keuls post hoc test, with significance set at 5%. Conclusion Marginal microleakage in composite resin restorations is influenced by the action of bleaching agents used both at-home and in-office, regardless of the adhesive system employed (total-etch or self-etch). Clinical significance Both at-home and in-office bleaching agents have an influence on the adhesive interface of resin restorations, producing changes and inducing marginal leakage. How to cite this article Klein Jr CA, da Silva D, Reston EG, Borghetti DLB, Zimmer R. Effect of At-home and In-office Bleaching on Marginal Microleakage in Composite Resin Restorations using Two Adhesive Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(3):248-252.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103743 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Polishing of the composite resin restorations ? literature review.

Annals of Dentistry ◽

10.22452/adum.vol17no1.5 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 25-34

Author(s):

M.A.G. Gonzalez ◽

N.H. Khokhar ◽

A.A.A. Razak

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Composite Resin Restorations ◽

Resin Restorations

Download Full-text

Polymerization Shrinkage of Different Types of Composite Resins and Microleakage With and Without Liner in Class II Cavities

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/11-479-l ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 39 (3) ◽

pp. 325-331 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

E Karaman ◽

G Ozgunaltay

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Class Ii ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Imaging Device ◽

Polymerization Shrinkage ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽

Different Types ◽

Composite Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Aim To determine the volumetric polymerization shrinkage of four different types of composite resin and to evaluate microleakage of these materials in class II (MOD) cavities with and without a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner, in vitro. Materials and Methods One hundred twenty-eight extracted human upper premolar teeth were used. After the teeth were divided into eight groups (n=16), standardized MOD cavities were prepared. Then the teeth were restored with different resin composites (Filtek Supreme XT, Filtek P 60, Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z 250) with and without a RMGIC liner (Vitrebond). The restorations were finished and polished after 24 hours. Following thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, then midsagitally sectioned in a mesiodistal plane and examined for microleakage using a stereomicroscope. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of materials was measured using a video imaging device (Acuvol, Bisco, Inc). Data were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Results All teeth showed microleakage, but placement of RMGIC liner reduced microleakage. No statistically significant differences were found in microleakage between the teeth restored without RMGIC liner (p>0.05). Filtek Silorane showed significantly less volumetric polymerization shrinkage than the methacrylate-based composite resins (p<0.05). Conclusion The use of RMGIC liner with both silorane- and methacrylate-based composite resin restorations resulted in reduced microleakage. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage was least with the silorane-based composite.

Download Full-text