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 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>

One Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Types of Composite Resins in Posterior Teeth

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 26-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranuifo Gianordoli Neto ◽  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
Juliano Sartori Mendonça ◽  
Vanara Florëncio Passos ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Different Types ◽  
One Year ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of two adhesive restorative systems (Single Bond/Filtek P-60 and Single Bond/Filtek Z-250) in posterior teeth using a modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) system. Methods and Materials A total of 70 restorations were placed in molars and premolars in 30 patients (14 females and 16 males; 18-40 years) by one operator. All restorations were directly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, six months, and 12 months using the following modified USPHS rating criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, surface texture, contour, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrent caries. Results At six and 12 months all restorations were available for evaluation of marginal discoloration, surface texture, contour, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrent caries that remained with 100% Alpha-ratings at recalls for both restorative systems. Marginal integrity for P-60 was scored as 94.3% and 91.4% Alpha at six and 12 months, respectively, and rates for Z-250 were 100% and 97.1% Alpha at six and 12 months, respectively. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher's exact and McNemar Chi-square tests at a significance level of 5% (P<0.05). Conclusion All restorations were clinically satisfactory and no significant differences were found among them. Clinical Significance Posterior resin composite restorations placed under appropriate conditions provide a satisfactory clinical performance. Citation Gianordoli Neto R, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris RP, Navarro MFdeL. One Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Types of Composite Resins in Posterior Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 May; (9)4:026-033.

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-252 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Effect of Three Different Mouthrinses on Microleakage of Composite Resin Restorations with Two Adhesive Systems after Bleaching with 10% Carbamide Peroxide

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soodabeh Kimyai ◽  
Siavash Savadi Oskoee ◽  
Amir Ahmad Ajami ◽  
Mahmoud Bahari ◽  
Mehdi Abed Kahnamoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Carbamide Peroxide ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Composite Resin Restoration ◽  
Bonferroni Test ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

ABSTRACT Aim The aim was to evaluate the effects of Oral-B (OB), Listerine (LN) and Rembrandt Plus (RM) mouthrinses on microleakage of composite resin restorations bonded with two adhesive systems after bleaching with 10% carbamide peroxide. Materials and methods A total of 60 Cl V cavities were prepared on human premolars. The occlusal and gingival margins were placed 1 mm occlusal to and apical to CEJ respectively. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups based on the adhesive system used: Excite (EX) and Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) groups. After composite resin restoration of cavities, thermocycling and bleaching with 10% carbamide peroxide for 2 hours daily for 14 days, the teeth in each adhesive group were further subdivided into three subgroups and were immersed for 12 hours in the three OB, RM and LN mouthrinses. The teeth were then placed in 2% basic fuschin for 24 hours. After dissecting the teeth, microleakage was evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 16×. Data was analyzed with multifactor ANOVA and Bonferroni test at p < 0.05. Results Microleakage with EX was significantly higher than that with CSE (p = 0.009). Microleakage at gingival margins was significantly higher than that at occlusal margins (p = 0.15). Microleakage with OB was higher than that with LN (p = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences in microleakage between LN and RM (p = 1) and between RM and OB (p = 0.15). In addition, with the EX adhesive system, microleakage with OB was higher than that with LN and RM (p = 0.02). Conclusion In the present study, microleakage of composite resin restorations was influenced by the type of the adhesive system, mouthrinse type and the location of the cavity margin. Clinical significance Use of some mouthrinses, such as OB after bleaching can increase postrestoration microleakage of resin composite restorations bonded with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. How to cite this article Ajami AA, Bahari M, Oskoee SS, Kimyai S, Kahnamoui MA, Rikhtegaran S, Ghaffarian R. Effect of Three Different Mouthrinses on Microleakage of Composite Resin Restorations with Two Adhesive Systems after Bleaching with 10% Carbamide Peroxide. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(1):16-22.

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

Repair of Dimethacrylate-Based Composite Restorations by a Silorane-Based Composite: A One-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. E13-E22 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAV Popoff ◽  
TTA Santa Rosa ◽  
RC Ferreira ◽  
CS Magalhães ◽  
AN Moreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Shrinkage Stress ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One

SUMMARY Purpose To investigate clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite resin when used for repairing conventional dimethacrylate-based composite restorations. Background Despite the continued development of resin-based materials, polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress still require improvement. A silorane-based monomer system was recently made available for dental restorations. This report refers to the use of this material for making repairs and evaluates the clinical performance of this alternative treatment. Materials and Methods One operator repaired the defective dimethacrylate-based composite resin restorations that were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: control (n=50) repair with Adper SE Plus (3M/ESPE) and Filtek P60 Posterior Restorative (3M/ESPE), and test (n=50) repair with P90 System Adhesive Self-Etch Primer and Bond (3M/ESPE) and Filtek P90 Low Shrink Posterior Restorative (3M/ESPE). After one week, restorations were finished and polished. Two calibrated examiners (Kw≥0.78) evaluated all repaired restorations, blindly and independently, at baseline and one year. The parameters examined were marginal adaptation, anatomic form, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries. The restorations were classified as Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie, according to modified US Public Health Service criteria. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare the groups. Results Of the 100 restorations repaired in this study, 93 were reexamined at baseline. Dropout from baseline to one-year recall was 11%. No statistically significant differences were found between the materials for all clinical criteria, at baseline or at one-year recall (p&gt;0.05). No statistically significant differences were registered (p&gt;0.05) for each material when compared for all clinical criteria at baseline and at one-year recall. Conclusions The hypothesis tested in this randomized controlled clinical trial was accepted. After the one-year evaluations, the silorane-based composite exhibited a similar performance compared with dimethacrylate-based composite when used to make repairs.

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation Of Direct Composite Resin And Indirect Micro Ceramic Composite Resin Restorations In Class-I Cavity Of Permanent Posterior Teeth

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
AHM Zakir Hossain Shikder ◽  
Kamrun Naher Shomi ◽  
Nushrat Saki ◽  
Ferdousi Begum ◽  
Kazi Hossain Mahmud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ceramic Composite ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Occlusal Surface ◽  
Class I ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Polymerization Shrinkage ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Ceramic Inlay

Background:Previous studies have indicated that the clinical performance of direct composite restoration mainly depends on the polymerization shrinkage. The use of micro ceramic inlay technique has proved to be elegant approach to overcome the polymerization shrinkage and improve the marginal adaptation, reduce wear and leakage of posterior restorations.Objectives:To compare the clinical performance between direct composite restorations and indirect micro ceramic composite restorations in occlusal surface of permanent posterior teethof class-I cavity. Results: The result of this study showed that there was no statisticallysignificant difference between two groups in the treatment of occlusal surface ofclass-I cavity of permanent posterior teeth (p > 0.05). It was concluded that indirect micro ceramic composite resin shows no better clinical efficacy than that of direct composite resin in occlusal surface of class-I cavity of permanent posterior teethInternational Journal of Human and Health Sciences Vol. 03 No. 02 April’19. Page: 109-115

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document