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>0.05). No statistically significant differences were registered (p>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.

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 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

Clinical Effectiveness of Different Polishing Systems and Self-Etch Adhesives in Class V Composite Resin Restorations: Two-Year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
J-H Jang ◽  
H-Y Kim ◽  
S-M Shin ◽  
C-O Lee ◽  
DS Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Class V ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in class V composite resin restorations. A total of 164 noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) from 35 patients were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups, each of which used a combination of polishing systems and adhesives. The two polishing systems used were Sof-Lex XT (Sof), a multistep abrasive disc, and Enhance/Pogo (EP), a simplified abrasive-impregnated rubber instrument. The adhesive systems were Clearfil SE bond (CS), a two-step self-etch adhesive, and Xeno V (XE), a one-step self-etch adhesive. All NCCLs were restored with light-cured microhybrid resin composites (Z250). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by two blinded independent examiners using modified FDI criteria. The Fisher exact test and generalized estimating equation analysis considering repeated measurements were performed to compare the outcomes between the polishing systems and adhesives. Three restorations were dislodged: two in CS/Sof and one in CS/EP. None of the restorations required any repair or retreatment except those showing retention loss. Sof was superior to EP with regard to surface luster, staining, and marginal adaptation (p&lt;0.05). CS and XE did not show differences in any criteria (p&gt;0.05). Sof is clinically superior to EP for polishing performance in class V composite resin restoration. XE demonstrates clinically equivalent bonding performance to CS.

scholarly journals One-Year Clinical Evaluation of the Bonding Effectiveness of a One-Step, Self-Etch Adhesive in Noncarious Cervical Lesion Therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Babacar Faye ◽  
Mouhamed Sarr ◽  
Khaly Bane ◽  
Adjaratou Wakha Aidara ◽  
Seydina Ousmane Niang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
One Step ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Self Etch

This study evaluated the one-year clinical performance of a one-step, self-etch adhesive (Optibond All-in-One, Kerr, CA, USA) combined with a composite (Herculite XRV Ultra, Kerr Hawe, CA, USA) to restore NCCLs with or without prior acid etching. Restorations performed by the same practitioner were evaluated at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months using modified USPHS criteria. At 6 months, the recall rate was 100%. The retention rate was 84.2% for restorations with prior acid etching, but statistically significant differences were observed between baseline and 6 months. Without acid etching, the retention rate was 77%, and no statistically significant difference was noted between 3 and 6 months. Marginal integrity (93.7% with and 87.7% without acid etching) and discoloration (95.3% with and 92.9% without acid etching) were scored as Alpha or Bravo, with better results after acid etching. After one year, the recall rate was 58.06%. Loss of pulp vitality, postoperative sensitivity, or secondary caries were not observed. After one year retention rate was of 90.6% and 76.9% with and without acid conditioning. Optibond All-in-One performs at a satisfactory clinical performance level for restoration of NCCLs after 12 months especially after acid etching.

scholarly journals The One-Year In Vivo Comparison of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconium Dioxide Inlays

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 3102
Author(s):  
Rini Behera ◽  
Lora Mishra ◽  
Darshan Devang Divakar ◽  
Abdulaziz A. Al-Kheraif ◽  
Naomi Ranjan Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zirconium Dioxide ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Internal Surfaces ◽  
Colour Match ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the one-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate (LD) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) class II inlay restorations. Thirty healthy individuals who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. The patients were randomly divided into two study groups (n = 15): LD (IPS e.max press) and ZrO2 (Dentcare Zirconia). In the ZrO2 group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were sandblasted and silanized with Monobond N (Ivoclar, Leichsteistein, Germany). In the LD group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid. The ceramic inlays were cemented with self-cure resin cement (Multilink N). Clinical examinations were performed using modified United State Public Health Codes and Criteria (USPHS) after 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. The one-year survival rate was evaluated. In total, one failure was observed in the ZrO2 group. The survival probability after 1 year for the ZrO2 inlays was 93%, and for the LD inlays was 100%, which was statistically insignificant. The differences between both groups for most USPHS criteria (except for colour match) were statistically insignificant. Within the imitations of the present study, the lithium disilicate- and zirconia dioxide-based inlays exhibited comparable clinical performances. However, the colour and translucency match was superior for the lithium disilicate restorations.

scholarly journals Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin – a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreia Assis Carvalho ◽  
Murillo Martins Leite ◽  
Jessica Karla Maia Zago ◽  
Carla Aparecida Bernardes Costa Men Nunes ◽  
Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class I ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Behavior ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Application Protocols

Abstract Background Multimode adhesives incorporate the versatility of adapting to various clinical situations by its capacity to be used in different protocols. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical behavior of composite resin direct restorations (Class I and II) performed with different universal dentin adhesive application protocols comparing adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria. Methods The current study is a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, and convenience sample controlled clinical trial. The participants (age ≥ 18 years) had restorative need of Class I and/or II due to the presence of carious lesions and/or unsatisfactory restorations in at least three dental elements. Each participant received three application protocols for Scotchbond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE), one in each tooth to be restored: ER = etch-and-rinse + adhesive (n = 50); SEE = selective enamel etch + adhesive (n = 50) and SE = self-etch adhesive (n = 50). All teeth were restored in a similar way using Filtek™ Supreme composite resin (3M ESPE). Restorations were evaluated using the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, at baseline after 7 to 21 (12.02 ± 5.68) days (T1; n = 50 per group) and after 12 to 20 (15.8 ± 2.7) months (T2; n = 46 per group) by two previously calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.80). The statistical tests were performed between groups (Friedman), intragroup (Wilcoxon), and between the criteria considering acceptable and not acceptable restorations (McNemar), α = 0.05. Results A statistically significant difference was observed only for the property “superficial staining”, between groups at T2 (p = 0.01) for ER (n = 13 with score 2 or more) and SEE (n = 3 with score 2 or more) and intragroup for ER (T1, n = 1 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 13 with score 2 or more, p = 0.001) and SE (T1, n = 0 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 8 with score 2 or more p = 0.007). For the other comparisons between groups, intragroup, and between the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, there were no statistically significant differences (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions It can be concluded that the different application protocols of the universal adhesive resulted in clinically “acceptable” restorations after 15.8 ± 2.7 months of follow-up. Adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria provided similar results to each other. Trial registration. Number in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR-9p3hdp. Registered 24 May 2015.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document