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 > Filtek Z250 > 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.

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

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Resin-Based Composites in Posterior Restorations: 12-Month Results

2010 ◽  
Vol 04 (01) ◽  
pp. 057-065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cigdem Celik ◽  
Neslihan Arhun ◽  
Kivanc Yamanel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Nanohybrid Composite

ABSTRACTObjectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the 12 month clinical performances of two different posterior composites in Class I and Class II restorations.Methods: Thirty-one patients (10 male, 21 female) were recruited into the study. A total of 82 Class I and Class II cavities were restored with either a nanohybrid composite (Grandio) or a low-shrinkage composite (Quixfil), using their self etch adhesives (Futura Bond and Xeno III) according to manufacturers’ instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated 1 week after placement as baseline, and after 6 and 12 months post-operatively using modified USPHS criteria by two previously calibrated operators. Statistical analysis were performed using Pearson Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact Test (P<.05).Results: All patients attended the 12-month recall. Lack of retention was not observed in any of the restorations. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and surface texture, no significant differences were found between two restorative materials tested after 12 months (P>.05). None of the restorations had marginal discoloration and anatomic form loss on the 12 month follow-up. Restorations did not exhibit post-operative sensitivity at any evaluation period.Conclusions: Clinical assessment of nanohybrid (Grandio) and low-shrinkage posterior composite (Quixfil) exhibited good clinical results with predominating alpha scores after 12 months. However; further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:57-65)

Clinical Evaluation of Silorane and Nano-hybrid Resin Composite Restorations in Class II Cavities up to 3 Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Öztürk-Bozkurt ◽  
T Toz ◽  
A Kara-Tuncer ◽  
H Gözükara-Bağ ◽  
M Özcan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Significant Deterioration ◽  
Final Recall ◽  
Hybrid Resin ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sensitivity Changes

SUMMARY In this study, the clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite (SC) vs a nano-hybrid resin composite (NHC) was evaluated in Class II cavities. From January 2012 to February 2013, a total of 29 patients (eight men, 21 women; mean age, 24 ± 5 years) received 29 pairs of restorations using both SC (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) and NHC (Filtek Z550, 3M ESPE) materials. Patients were followed until February 2015. One operator performed all restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins according to the manufacturers' instructions. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations at one week, six months, and then annually using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Changes in the USPHS parameters were analyzed with the McNemar test (α=0.05). The mean observation period was 31.2 months. Marginal adaptation was the only parameter that showed a significant difference and was worse for SC than NHC (p=0.012). At the final recall, 17 restorations from the SC group and five from the NHC group received a score of 1 (explorer catches). These scores were significantly different between baseline and final recall for SC (p&lt;0.001) but not for NHC (p&gt;0.05). Both NHC and SC performed similarly in Class II restorations up to three years except for marginal adaptation, for which the latter demonstrated significant deterioration at the final recall compared with baseline.

Clinical Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Nanofilled Resin Composite in Extensively Carious Posterior Teeth of Children: 30-Month Evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ü Candan ◽  
N Eronat ◽  
Lo Önçağ
Keyword(s):  
Glass Fiber ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Permanent Molar ◽  
Molar Teeth ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Objective: To evaluate the 30-month clinical performance of a nanofilled-resin composite with or without glass-fiber layering in restorations of large cavities in posterior teeth of children. Study Design: A total of 71 restorations were placed in permanent molar teeth of 47 children (mean age 10.9 years) with (FRC; n=35) or without (RC; n=36) fiber layering. One operator placed all restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the USPHS modified-Ryge criteria at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months. The data were analyzed using Fisher's exact and chi-square tests and outcomes were compared using the Cochran-Q test (p&lt;0.05). Results: The 30-month survival rates of the restorations were 97% and 97.1% in the RC and FRC groups, respectively. Nanofilled-resin restorations with or without glass fiber-layering showed similarly high clinical performance. No differences were detected between the evaluated criteria when comparing baseline with any of the evaluation periods (p&lt;0.05). After 30 months there were no secondary caries, change in anatomical form or postoperative sensitivity. Only minor changes for marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, color match and surface texture were observed. Conclusion: It was concluded that nanofilled-resin composite applied with or without glass-fiber layering showed similar and good results in large cavities of posterior permanent teeth in children over a 30-month period.

Clinical Performance of Ormocer, Nanofilled, and Nanoceramic Resin Composites in Class I and Class II Restorations: A Three-year Evaluation

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
SH Mahmoud ◽  
AE El-Embaby ◽  
AM AbdAllah
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Signed Rank ◽  
Single Operator ◽  
Signed Rank Test ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Level Of Significance

SUMMARY Purpose This prospective long-term clinical trial evaluated and compared the three-year clinical performance of an ormocer, a nanofilled, and a nanoceramic resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities. Methods Forty patients, each with four Class I and II restorations under occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 160 restorations were placed, 25% for each material, as follows: an ormocer-based composite, Admira; a nanofilled resin composite, Filtek Supreme XT; a nanoceramic resin composite, Ceram X; and a microhybrid resin composite, Tetric Ceram. A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturers' instructions. Immediately after placement the restorations were finished/polished. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at yearly intervals after placement by two other independent examiners using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The changes in the USPHS parameters during the three-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test. Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The level of significance was set at p &lt; 0.05. Results All materials showed only minor changes, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after three years. Only two ormocer, one nanofilled, and one microhybrid restorations in molars failed because of loss of retention. Regarding the clinical performance, there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used (p&gt;0.05). Conclusions The ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic composites provided acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period.

scholarly journals One-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate versus resin composite CAD/CAM onlays

Odontology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 259-270
Author(s):  
Joana Souza ◽  
Mª Victoria Fuentes ◽  
Eugenia Baena ◽  
Laura Ceballos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Oral Care ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Biological Properties ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
One Year

AbstractTo compare the 1-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate and resin composite CAD/CAM onlay restorations. Twenty patients that required two restorations in posterior teeth, with at least one cusp to be covered, received two onlays. One was made with IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent) and the other with Lava Ultimate (3M Oral Care). Two blind observers evaluated the restorations at baseline and 1 year after the onlays were cemented, according to FDI criteria. At each recall, digital photographs, bite-wing radiographs and impressions of the restorations were taken for SEM evaluation of the interface. Results were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05). At baseline and in the 1-year recall, both CAD/CAM materials exhibited excellent results in most criteria with similar esthetic, functional and biological properties (p > 0.05). However, deterioration in surface lustre (p = 0.020) and color match/translucency (p = 0.039) were detected for IPS e.max CAD onlays after 1-year. Under SEM evaluation, there were no statistically differences in micromorphological criteria at baseline nor after a year between IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays. Conclusion: After 1 year of clinical service IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays showed a similar clinical performance that needs to be confirmed in long-term evaluations.

Direct Resin Composite Restorations in Vital Versus Root-filled Posterior Teeth: A Controlled Comparative Long-term Follow-up

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 437-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Adolphi ◽  
M. Zehnder ◽  
L. M. Bachmann ◽  
T. N. Göhring
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Clinical Relevance In endodontically-treated posterior teeth, minimal direct composite restorations had a tendency to fail more often than their counterparts in vital teeth.

Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. E60-E67
Author(s):  
F Ozer ◽  
O Irmak ◽  
O Yakymiv ◽  
A Mohammed ◽  
R Pande ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Class I ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Total N ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance The clinical performance of both conventional and flowable giomer restorative materials was particularly good in Class I restorations after three years of service. SUMMARY This study evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional giomer restorative material after three years. Forty-four pairs of restorations (total n=88) were placed in Class I cavities with either a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or a conventional giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc) after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL-Bond II; Shofu Inc) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 3 years, 39 pairs of restorations were evaluated with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria, and digital color photographs of restorations were taken at each patient visit. The evaluation parameters were as follows: color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention, secondary caries formation, anatomic form, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. Evaluations were recorded as a clinically ideal situation (Alpha), a clinically acceptable situation (Bravo), or a clinically unacceptable situation (Charlie). Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar tests (α=0.05). None of the restorations showed retention loss, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or color change. The performance of Beautifil II in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and surface anatomic form was significantly lower at the 36-month follow-up than at baseline (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between the baseline and 36-month follow-up scores for the other criteria for Beautifil II (p&gt;0.05). No differences were found between the baseline and the 36-month follow-up scores for any of the criteria for Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (p&gt;0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p&gt;0.05). The three-year clinical performance of both restorative materials (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 and Beautifil II) was very good and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated.

scholarly journals Long-Term Clinical Performance of Aesthetic Restorations in Primary Molars: A Case Report

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana Pomarico ◽  
Beatriz Gonçalves Neves ◽  
Lucianne Cople Maia ◽  
Laura Guimarães Primo
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Method ◽  
Public Health Service ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Natural Teeth ◽  
Deciduous Molars

There is a great diversity of restorative materials and techniques for deciduous molars with significant coronal destruction, including resin composite restorations and biologic restorations (portions of natural teeth). By using 4 evaluation methods, this study aimed at longitudinally evaluating the effectiveness of restorations in the deciduous molars of a patient having high caries activity, using adhesive techniques. The evaluation methods consisted of the fibre-optic transillumination method, clinical evaluation based on the United States Public Health Service criteria, radiographs, and an indirect method, scanning electron microscopy. Despite the patient's poor biofilm control, the restorative techniques were shown to be efficacious, particularly the biologic restorative technique.

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&gt;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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document