scholarly journals Two-year clinical performance and marginal integrity evaluation of high C-factor occlusal cavities restored with preheated Bulk-Fill, SonicFill and incremental fill composite resin

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 2673-2693
Author(s):  
reham attia
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Marginal Integrity

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.

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 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&gt;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&lt;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 Evaluation of maxillary anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with different types of crowns

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Mohammed Al Moaleem ◽  
Abdulrahman A Mobaraky ◽  
Hassan A Madkhali ◽  
Muneera R Gohal ◽  
Amna M Mobaraki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Endodontically Treated Teeth ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Color Changes ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The One ◽  
Composite Restoration

Statement of the problem: restoring endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is one of the major treatments provided by a dentist. Glass fiber posts (GFP) showed good clinical performance during last few years.Aim of the study; to assess and compare the clinical as well as the radiographic performance of different types of ceramic crown systems used in restoration of maxillary anterior teeth over a cemented GFP and composite resin core.Materials and methods: 50 ETT with GFP were included in this study. These teeth were divided into four gropes (composite resin. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM), e. max and zirconia restorations). Both the clinical and radiographic assessments were done for the restoration at a period of one week, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after composite build up and crown's cementations. All data were registered and analyzed by SPSS program using percentages and Kaplan-Meyer analysis. Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical values while log-rank test was used for descriptive statistical analysis.Results: the clinical assessment showed no changes in the one week, 3 and 6 months in the four groups. While during the 9 and 12 months, a movement of the crown margin under finger pressure was present in one case, loss or retention in 2 cases of zirconia, the periodontal status with violation of biological width was present in one case of PFM and finally the color changes were obvious in one case of PFM and 2 cases of composite restoration. All the restorations in the four groups had no radiographic changes in the one week and three-month assessments. While during six-month follow-up, a loosed of retention in one case of the zirconia crown was detected. At the 9 and 12 months, two cases showed recurrent caries at the cervical margin of the composite restoration, cases with periapical infection and other with loss of retention of the post were recorded in the PFM restoration.Conclusion: e. Max and zirconia all ceramic crowns showed better clinical and radiographic performance than the PFM and composite restorations over 12 months recall.

Clinical performance of indirect composite resin inlays/onlays in a dental school: observations up to 34 months

1999 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Leirskar ◽  
Turid Henaug ◽  
Nina Rygh Thoresen ◽  
Håkon Nordbø ◽  
Frithjof Ramm von der Fehr
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Dental School ◽  
Indirect Composite

Polymerization Stress and the Influence of TOSU Addends on Methacrylate Composites

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan R. Holmes ◽  
Jennifer R. Melander ◽  
Rachel A. Weiler ◽  
Thomas P. Schuman ◽  
Kathleen V. Kilway ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Mechanical Strain ◽  
Degree Of Conversion ◽  
Double Bonds ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Premature Failure ◽  
Aesthetic Appeal ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
High Degree

The aesthetic appeal of composite-resin restoratives promotes their use, however their functional life is significantly shorter when compared to their metal counterparts.1 One possible reason is the effect of polymerization stress on marginal integrity. Shrinkage of the composite, and its associated stress, has been found to cause gap formation and stress interactions between the restorative and the adhesive. These gaps offer an ideal niche for bacteria, and, when compounded by the mechanical strain of chewing, can lead to premature failure of the restorative.2,3 Additionally, it is well known that incomplete conversion of the double bonds occurs during methacrylate polymerizations.4–7 A high degree of conversion is needed to prevent the presence of potentially hazardous monomers.8

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document