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.

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>

Evaluation of the formation of marginal gaps in preheated composite resin restorations

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Antonio Gallito
Keyword(s):  
Room Temperature ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Polymeric Materials ◽  
Sem Analysis ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Polymerization Shrinkage ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

Composite resins are polymeric restorative materials that have acceptable mechanical properties, so they are used in anterior and posterior teeth. There is, however, polymerization shrinkage inherent in the polymeric materials. This contraction is responsible for the formation of cracks at the interface of the restoration. These gaps contribute to the staining of the composite resin and the appearance of cavities. In order to minimize the effects of polymerization shrinkage, variations in restorative technique has been introduced to fulfill this goal. The preheating resin composite is one of them.This study aimed to assess the formation of marginal gaps, using scan electron microscopy, in composite resin restorations created using one room-temperature composite resin and one preheated to 60°C. 20 recently-extracted human molars with circular cavities in the surface dentine of each proximal surface were used. The cavities were restored using Filtek Z350 (3M) composite resin affixed with Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive (3M) and divided into two groups of 10 samples: group 1 – room-temperature composite resin restorations (n=10) and group 2 – composite resin restorations preheated to 60oC (n=10). The samples were kept in a bacteriological incubator for a period of seven days. After this, the restorations were polished and epoxy resin replicas were created using a casting with addition silicone for subsequent SEM analysis. The gaps were measured with the aid of UTHSCSA Image tool software and the results were submitted to Student “t” test statistical analysis, achieving the following results: the highest marginal gap figures were obtained with Filtek Z350 resin preheated to 60oC (t= -3.961 and p=0.000). Based on the methodology employed and the results achieved, it can be concluded that there was a greater formation of marginal gaps in the dentin-composite resin interface where Filtek Z350 resin preheated to 60°C was used for restorations, thus making it preferable to use room-temperature composite resin.Keywords:Composite resin. Marginal gaps. Electronic microscopy.

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 Clinical Evaluation of Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-43
Author(s):  
Matheus Bruno Costa ◽  
Erika Terumi Tomisaki ◽  
Daiane Cristina Mendonça dos Santos ◽  
Marcio Grama Hoeppner ◽  
Sueli De Almeida Cardoso
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Dental Restoration ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Class I ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations ◽  
3Rd Grade

AbstractFactors such as aesthetics and adhesion to dental substrates have consolidated composite resin as a restorative material for posterior teeth, however, the performance is unsatisfactory regarding the longevity of these restorations. The purpose of this retrospective cross-sectional observational study was to evaluate the reasons that resulted in failure of class I and II Black composite resin restorations, performed by undergraduate dental students at the State University of Londrina. The patients were selected from the research of the medical charts filed at the University Dental Clinic's Screening Department. The restorations were evaluated by two calibrated dentists. The data collected were tabulated and analyzed using descriptive statistics, function Cont IF. Of the 261 class I and II restorations evaluated, 150 (57.5%) were in need of replacement. The main causes of failure of class I and II restorations were secondary caries (46.7%), followed by fracture (19.3%) and loss of marginal adaptation (16.7%). Of all the restorations made by the 3rd grade students, 68.4% failed, 57.4% performed by the 4th grade students and 53.9% of the 5th grade students. Based on the results, it is concluded that the main reasons for restorations failure were secondary caries, fracture and loss of marginal adaptation according to the evaluation criteria. Restorations performed by students in the 3rd grade showed a higher percentage of failures compared to those performed by students in the 4th and 5th grades. Keywords: Permanent Dental Restoration. Composite Resins. Dental Restoration Failure. Resumo Fatores como estética e adesão aos substratos dentários têm consolidado a resina composta como material restaurador para dentes posteriores, entretanto, o desempenho mostra-se insatisfatório em relação a longevidade destas restaurações. O objetivo desse estudo observacional transversal retrospectivo foi avaliar as razões que resultaram em falhas das restaurações de resina composta de classe I e II de Black, realizadas por alunos de graduação em Odontologia da Universidade Estadual de Londrina. Os pacientes foram selecionados a partir da pesquisa dos prontuários arquivados no Setor de Triagem da Clínica Odontológica Universitária. As restaurações foram avaliadas por dois avaliadores, cirurgiões-dentistas, calibrados. Os dados coletados foram tabulados e analisados por meio de estatística descritiva, função Cont SE. Das 261 restaurações classes I e II avaliadas, 150 (57,5%) apresentavam-se com necessidade de substituição. As principais causas de falhas das restaurações classes I e II foram: cárie secundária (46,7%), seguido de fratura (19,3%) e perda de integridade marginal (16,7%). Dentre as restaurações realizadas por alunos da 3ª série e avaliadas, 68,4% falharam, da 4ª série 57,4% e da 5ª série 53,9%. Com base nos resultados, conclui-se que as principais razões de falha das restaurações foram cárie secundária, fratura e perda de integridade marginal, de acordo com os critérios de avaliação. As restaurações realizadas por alunos da 3ª série apresentaram maior percentual de falhas, comparadas as realizadas pelos alunos da 4ª e 5ª séries. Palavras-chave: Restauração Dentária Permanente. Resinas Compostas. Falha de Restauração Dentária.

scholarly journals Effects of Different Application Techniques on Nanohybrid Composite Restorations Clinical Success

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 228-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasha Al-Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Application Techniques ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Group B ◽  
Resin Restorations

Introduction:Dental composites have been used as a restorative material for a long time. However, they have their limitations.Aims:This study evaluated the effects of placement techniques on the clinical performance of class I composite resin restorations.Methods:A total of 40 patients with split-mouth design participated in this study. Each patient had two fillings according to the placement technique (either bulk or incremental packing) of the composite resin restorations. Group (A): was packed by Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill composite resin and Group (B): was incrementally packed with Tetric EvoCeram composite resin. Restorations of the teeth were evaluated on the same day, at one week, 3 months and 6 months to determine any signs of failure according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.Results:At different follow-up periods, the results showed no significant differences for retention, marginal integrity, surface stain, gingival bleeding, and secondary caries; however, there were significant differences in color match, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity.Conclusion:This study concluded that the nanohybrid resin composites demonstrated excellent clinical performance for 6 months follow up period.

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

scholarly journals Influence of method and period of storage on the microtensile bond strength of indirect composite resin restorations to dentine

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Ribeiro Santana ◽  
Janaína Carla Pereira ◽  
Cristina Alves Pereira ◽  
Alfredo Júlio Fernandes Neto ◽  
Carlos José Soares
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Indirect Composite ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document