scholarly journals Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
AR Yazici ◽  
I Ustunkol ◽  
G Ozgunaltay ◽  
B Dayangac
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class I ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Bonferroni Adjustment ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Restorative Materials

SUMMARY The aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin composite (P60), and 28 with silorane-based resin (Filtek Silorane). Filtek Supreme and P60 were used with their respective etch-and-rinse adhesive system, Adper Single Bond 2, and Filtek Silorane was used with its respective self-etch adhesive, Filtek Silorane Adhesive. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, at six months, and annually for three years according to modified US Public Health Service criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The three restorative materials for each category were compared using the χ2 test at a significance level of 0.05. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the changes across the five time points for each restorative material. McNemar's test followed by Bonferroni adjustment was used when significance differences were found. At the end of the three years, 60 restorations were evaluated in 20 patients, with a recall rate of 71.4%. The retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. Eight restorations from the P60 group, ten from the Filtek Supreme group, and nine from the Filtek Silorane group were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration. For marginal adaptation, three P60, five Filtek Supreme, and 11 Filtek Silorane restorations were rated Bravo. No statistically significant differences in overall clinical performance were found between the restorative materials except for marginal adaptation. P60 showed the best marginal adaptation at the end of the three years. No differences were observed between the restorative resins for any of the evaluation criteria tested (p>0.05). None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form. All restorative resins performed equally well in clinical conditions during the three-year evaluation, and no significant differences were found among them, except for marginal adaptation, in which P60 showed superior results.

scholarly journals CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE NANO HYBRID BULK FILL COMPOSITE AND NANO HYBRID FLOWABLE COMPOSITE IN CLASS I RESTORATIONS--- AN IN VIVO STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anil K. Tomer ◽  
Hysum Mushtaq ◽  
Anila Krishna Saxena ◽  
Megna Bhatt ◽  
Ayush Tyagi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Class I ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Flowable Composite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nano filled flowable and nano hybrid bulk fill resin composite in class I restorations. Methods and Materials: Twenty patients were selected for this in vivo study. Each patient received at least one pair of restorations, restored with nano hybrid bulk fill resin composite (IPS Empress direct [IED]) and nano hybrid Tetric N Ceram flowable composite [TNC]. Each restorative resin system was used with its respective adhesive system according to manufacturers’ instructions. A total of 40 class I restorations were placed by one operator.  Restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months respectively using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The data obtained was statistically analyzed using Chi square test to compare the two restorative materials for each category. Results: At 3, 6 and 12, months, recall rate was 100%, 95% and 85%, respectively, with a retention rate of 100%. There were statistically significant differences between the two restorative resins in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration (p<0.05). No differences were observed between the restorative resins in terms of retention (p<0.05). None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, or loss of anatomic form. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, nano hybrid bulk fill composite resin viz. IPS EMPRESS DIRECT showed better clinical performance than nano filled flowable composite in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation. Keywords: direct composite, bulk, hybrid filled resin

Five-year Randomized Clinical Trial on the Performance of Two Etch-and-rinse Adhesives in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
TP Matos ◽  
TA Hanzen ◽  
R Almeida ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
MC Bandeca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Dihydrogen Phosphate ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Repeated Measures Anova ◽  
Etch And Rinse

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL). Methods and Materials: The sample comprised 35 adults with at least two similar-sized NCCL. Seventy restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) and Ambar (AM). The restorations were placed incrementally using a resin composite (Opallis). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months and 5 years using some items of the FDI criteria. The differences in the ratings of the two materials after 6 months, 18 months, and 5 years were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05). Results: Five patients did not attend the 60-month recall. No significant differences were observed between the materials for any criteria evaluated. Twenty-one restorations failed (12 for SB and 9 for AM) after 60 months. Thus, the retention rate for SB at 60 months were 55.6% for SB and 71% for AM (p=0.32). After 60 months, 12 restorations (6 for SB and 6 AM) showed some loss of marginal adaptation (p=1.0). Slight marginal discoloration was observed in 10 restorations (6 for SB and 4 AM; p=0.91). Five restorations (2 for SB and 3 for AM) showed recurrences of caries (p=1.0). Conclusions: Both two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives—Adper Single Bond 2, a polyalkenoic acid-containing adhesive, and Ambar, a 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-containing adhesive—showed acceptable clinical performance after 60 months.

Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 478-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
AR Yazici ◽  
SA Antonson ◽  
ZB Kutuk ◽  
E Ergin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Chi Square Test

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a bulk fill resin composite in class II restorations. Methods and Materials: In accordance with a split-mouth design, 50 patients received at least one pair of restorations, restored with a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate [FU]) and with a bulk fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [TB]). Each restorative resin was used with its respective adhesive system according to the manufacturers' instructions. A total of 104 class II restorations were placed by two operators. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline and at six, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test (α=0.05). The baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q-test. Results: At six, 12, 18, and 24 months, the recall rate was 100%, 98%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, with a retention rate of 100%. At 36 months, 81 restorations were evaluated in 39 patients with a recall rate of 78%. For marginal adaptation, four restorations from the TB group and 10 from the FU group rated as Bravo. Two restorations from the TB and eight restorations from the FU group showed marginal discoloration. There were statistically significant differences between the two restorative resins in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration (p&lt;0.05). No differences were observed between the restorative resins in terms of retention (p&gt;0.05). One restored tooth from the FU group was crowned. The retention rates for the TB and the FU groups were 100%. In the FU group, two restorations showed slightly rough surfaces, and two showed a slight mismatch in color. None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form. Conclusions: The tested bulk fill restorative resin demonstrated better clinical performance in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation.

Catechin-based Dentin Pretreatment and the Clinical Performance of a Universal Adhesive: A Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 473-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAGA Costa ◽  
NLG Albuquerque ◽  
JS Mendonça ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
VPA Saboia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance At 24 months, the dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate did not impair the clinical performance of the adhesive Single Bond Universal regardless of the bonding strategy used. SUMMARY Purpose: To evaluate the two-year effect of dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) on the clinical performance of restorations of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with Single Bond Universal, applied in two different modes (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). Methods and Materials: In this randomized clinical trial, 33 volunteers were selected, and 156 NCCLs were assigned to four groups: ER, etch-and-rinse; ER-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; and SE-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + self-etch. The NCCLs were restored with a nanofilled resin composite and evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using FDI criteria for retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Two evaluators were blinded to the treatments performed, and impressions were taken for resin replicas to allow indirect observations. Statistical analyses were performed with Kruskal-Wallis and McNemar tests with a significance level of 5%. Results: Six restorations (one from ER, two from SE, one from ER-EGCG, and two from SEEGCG) were lost at 24 months with no significant differences (p&gt;0.05). The retention rates were 97.0% (ER and ER-EGCG), 94.1% (SE), and 94.2% (SE-EGCG). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was detected between the baseline and 24 months for the SE group (p=0.0313). There were no statistical differences among all other evaluated criteria at 24 months, neither for each group at baseline nor for 24-month comparisons (p&gt;0.05). Conclusions: The pretreatment with EGCG provided no benefit in the clinical performance of the adhesive regardless of the bonding strategy used. In addition, it adds an additional required step to the restorative procedure.

Clinical Evaluation of a Silorane- and a Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite in Class II Restorations: 24-Month Results

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. E102-E110 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Karaman ◽  
AR Yazici ◽  
G Ozgunaltay ◽  
I Ustunkol ◽  
A Berber
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objective: To compare the 24-month clinical performance of two different resin composites in class II slot restorations. Methods and Materials: Thirty-seven patients having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored with either a silorane-based composite (Filtek Silorane) and its self-etch adhesive (Silorane Adhesive System, 3M ESPE) or a methacrylate-based packable resin composite (X-tra Fil) and its self-etch adhesive (Futurabond NR, VOCO GmbH) according to the toss of a coin. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six-, 12-, and 24-month recalls by two calibrated examiners according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test. Within group differences of the materials at different recall times were compared using the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Bonferroni-adjusted McNemar test was used when significant difference was found (p&lt;0.05). Results: After 24 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the two restorative materials for the criteria evaluated. Conclusions: Both silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months.

scholarly journals Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Secil Bektaş Donmez ◽  
Melek D. Turgut ◽  
Serdar Uysal ◽  
Pinar Ozdemir ◽  
Meryem Tekcicek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
The Self ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p>0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p<0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p<0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

scholarly journals Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
Vanara Florêncio Passos ◽  
Alessandra Helen Magacho Vieira ◽  
Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Etch And Rinse

This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive and resin composite system (Excite/Tetric Ceram) compared to a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer/3M) in non-carious cervical lesions. Seventy cervical restorations (35 resin composite - RC- restorations and 35 RMGIC restorations) were placed by a single operator in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. All restorations were evaluated blindly by 2 independent examiners using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 months. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact and McNemar tests. After 2 years, 59 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. As much as 78.8% retention rate was recorded for RC restorations, while 100% retention was obtained for RMGIC restorations. Fisher's exact test showed significant differences (p=0.011) for retention. However, there were no significant differences for marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and secondary caries between the RC and RMGIC restorations. The McNemar test detected significant differences for Excite/TC between baseline and the 2-year recall for retention (p=0.02), marginal integrity (p=0.002) and anatomic form (p=0.04). Therefore, the one-bottle etch-and-rinse bonding system/resin composite showed an inferior clinical performance compared to the RMGIC.

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity in Class I Resin Composite Restorations

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 8p
Author(s):  
Renan Menezes Cardoso ◽  
Bruno Mendonça Lucena De Veras ◽  
Marlus da Silva Pedrosa ◽  
Claudio Heliomar Vicente Da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Class I ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Objective: To evaluate the postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations with different resin composites and adhesive systems as well as the influence of the depth and extent of the dental cavity. Material and Methods: A double-blind clinical trial was carried out with 80 class I restorations of 16 patients. The participants were divided into 4 groups according to the adhesive system + composite: F + P (Filtek P90™ + P90™); R + S (Rok™ + Stae™); P + A (P60™ + Adper SE PLUS™); E + X (Evolux™ + XPBond™ Adhesive). After 7, 15 and 30 days, the presence of postoperative sensitivity was evaluated and classified according to type and intensity. The data were submitted to Pearson's chi-square test, Fisher's exact teste, Student’s t-test and ANOVA. A significance level of 5% was used for all tests. Results: The presence of postoperative sensitivity was approximately 6% of the total sample. The sensitivity decreased with the evaluation time, with the smallest reduction occurring from the 7-day evaluation compared to the other evaluations. Conclusion: There was found no evidence of influence of the resin composite and adhesive type, depth and extension of the cavities for the presence of postoperative sensitivity. Keywords Dentistry; Dentin sensitivity; Adhesives; Composite resins.

scholarly journals 6-month clinical performance of a universal adhesive on non-carious cervical lesions: self-etch and etch-and-rinse techniques

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joana Cruz ◽  
◽  
Ana Silva ◽  
Raquel Eira ◽  
Catarina Coito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Estimating Equation ◽  
The Self ◽  
Generalized Estimating Equation ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 6-month clinical performance of Adhese Universal applied with two different application strategies (self-etch vs. etch-andrinse technique) when restoring non-carious cervical lesions. Methods: Twenty-six patients participated in this study. Restorations of 117 non-carious cervical lesions were assigned to 2 groups: 1) Adhese Universal in the etch-and-rinse mode (n=59) and 2) Adhese Universal in the self-etch mode (n=58). The same resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram) was used for all restorations. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6 months, using the World Dental Federation criteria. The results were analyzed statistically by the McNemar test (α=0.05 and power of 80%) to compare the differences between baseline and 6 months and a generalized estimating equation to compare the differences between the 2 techniques. Results: No differences were found in restoration performance between the baseline and the end of the 6-month period in the self-etch mode (marginal coloring: p=0.1366; fractures/retention: p=1.000; marginal adaptation: p=1.000; hypersensitivity: p=0.4795; recurrence of caries: p=1.000). On the other hand, in the etch-and-rinse mode, for both fractures/retention (p=0.0028) and marginal adaptation (p=0.0016), significant differences were found. Significant differences were also detected between groups at 6 months for fractures/retention and marginal adaptation (p<0.01). Nine restorations were lost at 6 months in the etch-and-rinse group. Conclusions: The tested universal adhesive obtained better results in the self-etch technique than in the etch-and-rinse technique, both on fractures/retention and marginal adaptation.

Resin Composite Class I Restorations: A 54-month Randomized Clinical Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 588-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
AKM de Andrade ◽  
RM Duarte ◽  
FDSC Medeiros e Silva ◽  
AUD Batista ◽  
KC Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Class I ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Level Of Significance ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

SUMMARY The objective of this longitudinal clinical randomized trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofilled and a nanohybrid resin composite in Class I occlusal restorations of posterior teeth over the course of 54 months. Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with Adper Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE) and nanofilled (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE), nanohybrid (Esthet-X, Dentsply) and microhybrid Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) used as a control. After 54 months, the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis, at a level of significance of 5%. Five failed restorations were observed during the follow-up. A change to unacceptable restoration occurred for one Esthet-X, two Filtek Z350, and two Filtek Z250 restorations, which received the clinically unacceptable score, Charlie, for both anatomic form and marginal adaptation. Secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity occurred in one Filtek Z250 and one Filtek Z350 restoration. When the five evaluation periods (baseline and six, 12, 30, and 54 months) were compared, significant differences were found in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 and Filtek Z350. Significant differences in the roughness criteria (p=0.005) were also observed when the three composites were compared after 54 months (Filtek Z350 &gt; Filtek Z250 &gt; Esthet-X), always within clinically acceptable limits. The materials investigated showed acceptable clinical performance for Class I restoration after 54 months. Long-term reevaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document