scholarly journals Marginal Integrity of Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Class II Composite Restorations

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Al-Harbi ◽  
D Kaisarly ◽  
D Bader ◽  
M El Gezawi
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Sandwich Technique ◽  
Thermomechanical Cycling ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Bulk-fill composites have been introduced to facilitate the placement of deep direct resin composite restorations. This study aimed at analyzing the cervical marginal integrity of bulk-fill vs incremental and open-sandwich class II resin composite restorations after thermomechanical cycling using replica scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and ranking according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Box-only class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars with the gingival margin placed 1 mm above and below the cemento-enamel junction. Eighty-four premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups, then subdivided into six restorative subgroups (n=7): 1-Tetric Ceram HB (TC) was used incrementally and in the open-sandwich technique with 2-Tetric EvoFlow (EF) and 3-Smart Dentin Replacement (SD). Bulk-fill restoratives were 4-SonicFill (SF), 5-Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN), and 6-Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). In subgroups 1-5, Tetric N-Bond self-etch and Tetric N-Bond total-etch adhesives were used, whereas in subgroup 6, AdheSE self-etch and ExciTE F total etch were used. One more group (n=7) was restored with Filtek P90 Low Shrink Posterior Restorative (P9) only in combination with its self-etch P90 System Adhesive. Materials were manipulated and light cured (20 seconds, 1600 mW/cm2), and restorations were artificially aged by thermo-occlusal load cycling. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions were taken and poured with epoxy resin. Resin replicas were examined by SEM (200×) for marginal sealing, and percentages of perfect margins were analyzed. Moreover, samples were examined using loupes (3.5×) and explorers and categorized according to the FDI criteria. Results were statistically analyzed (SEM by Kruskal-Wallis test and FDI by chi-square test) without significant differences in either the replica SEM groups (p=0.848) or the FDI criteria groups (p>0.05). The best SEM results at the enamel margin were in TC+EF/total-etch and SF/total-etch and at the cementum margins were in SF/total-etch and TE/self-etch, while the worst were in TC/self-etch at both margins. According to FDI criteria, the best was TE/total-etch at the enamel margin, and the poorest was P9/self-etch at the cementum margin. Groups did not differ significantly, and there was a strong correlation in results between replica SEM and FDI ranking.

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<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.

Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 622-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Al-Harbi ◽  
D Kaisarly ◽  
A Michna ◽  
A ArRejaie ◽  
D Bader ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Interfacial Bonding ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
Group 5 ◽  
Interfacial Gap ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Cervical interfacial bonding quality has been a matter of deep concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and cervical interfacial gap distance (IGD) of bulk-fill vs incremental-fill Class II composite restorations. Box-only Class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars (n = 7) with gingival margin placement 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction at one side and 1 mm below it on the other side. Eighty-four maxillary premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups and further subdivided into six restorative material subgroups used incrementally and with an open-sandwich technique: group 1, Tetric Ceram HB (TC) as a control; group 2, Tetric EvoFlow (EF); group 3, SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR); group 4, SonicFill (SF); group 5, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN); and group 6, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). Groups 2-6 were bulk-fill restoratives. Tetric N-Bond Self-Etch (se) and Tetric N-Bond total-etch (te) adhesive were used in subgroups 1–5, whereas AdheSE (se) and ExciTE F (te) were used in subgroup 6. In an additional group, Filtek P90 Low Shrink Restorative (P90) was used only with its corresponding self-etch bond. The materials were manipulated, light-cured (1600 mW/cm2), artificially aged (thermal and occlusal load-cycling), and sectioned. Two microrods/restoration (n = 14/group) were tested for MTBS at a crosshead-speed of 0.5 mm/min (Instron testing machine). Fracture loads were recorded (Newtons), and MTSBs were calculated (Megapascals). Means were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, Conover-Inman post hoc analysis for MTBS (multiple comparisons), and Mann-Whitney U test for IGD. The ends of the fractures were examined for failure mode. One microrod/restoration (n = 7/group) was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (×1200) for IGD. MTBS values for SF/te, P90 in enamel, and TC+SDR/te in enamel and cementum were significantly higher compared with those for the control TC/te and TC/se in cementum. Most of the failures were mixed. IGDs were generally smaller at enamel margins, and the smallest IGDs were found in P90 at both enamel and cementum margins. Bulk-fill and silorane-based composites might provide better cervical interfacial quality than incremental-fill restorations.

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<0.05). No differences were observed between the restorative resins in terms of retention (p>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.

scholarly journals Clinical Effect of Dental Adhesive on Marginal Integrity in Class I And Class II Resin-Composite Restorations

Folia Medica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 57 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 250-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neshka A. Manchorova-Veleva ◽  
Stoyan B. Vladimirov ◽  
Donka А. Keskinova
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Recall Time ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
One Step ◽  
Mechanical Factors ◽  
The One ◽  
Self Etch

Abstract BACKGROUND: Dental adhesives are believed to influence marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration when used under posterior resin-based composite restorations. Studies on the latest adhesive systems reveal that the group of the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (3-E&RA) and the one-step self-etch adhesive (1-SEA) have entirely different bonding mechanisms, as well as different bond strength and resistance to chemical, thermal and mechanical factors. STUDY OBJECTIVES: A hypothesis that a 1-SEA would result in greater enamel marginal discoloration and poorer marginal adaptation than a 3-E&RA was tested. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred restorations were placed with a 1-SEA and 100 restorations with a 3-E&RA. Teeth were restored with Filtek Supreme nanofilled resin-composite and were evaluated for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration at baseline, and 6 months, 12 months, and 36 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The statistical analysis revealed significant differences in marginal integrity between test groups. The 1-SEA resulted in greater enamel marginal discoloration and poorer marginal adaptation than the 3-E&RA at any recall time. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration depend on the type of dentin adhesive used. The restorations with Filtek Supreme and Scotchbond MP are better than the restorations with Adper Prompt L-Pop with regard to the marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration at 6-, 12- and 36-month evaluations.

The Effects of Dentin Adhesives and Liner Materials on the Microleakage of Class II Resin Composite Restorations in Primary and Permanent Teeth

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
H C Güngör ◽  
E Canoğlu ◽  
Z C Çehreli
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Liner Material ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Dentin Adhesives ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

>Purpose: To compare the occlusal and gingival microleakage of Class-II composite restorations utilizing etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and different liner materials in primary and permanent teeth. Study design: Standardized class-II cavities were prepared in freshly-extracted sound primary and permanent molars (n=80/each), with all cavosurface margins involving enamel. The main experimental groups were; A. Single Bond 2/primary teeth; B. Adper SE Plus/primary teeth; C. Single Bond 2/permanent teeth; and D. Adper SE Plus/permanent teeth. Each group comprised 4 subgroups (n=10/each) with respect to the liner material employed (n=10/subgroup): 1. Fuji VII; 2. Fuji Triage; 3. Filtek Supreme XT Flowable Composite, and 4. No liner. All teeth were restored with Filtek Supreme XT Universal Nanofilled Composite. Following thermocycling and immersion in basic fuchsin, the extent of microleakage was measured on crown sections using image analysis. The data were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, Mann-Whitney U-Test and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA at ?=0.05. Results: In both primary and permanent teeth the use of etch-and-rinse adhesive resulted in similar occlusal and gingival microleakage values (p>0.05). As for the self-etch adhesive, similar results were observed (p>0.05) with the exception of significantly less occlusal leakage in the Fuji Triage VII and Fuji Triage subgroups of primary teeth than those of permanent teeth (pÃ0.05). When the effects of liner material and the type of adhesive were disregarded, significantly more gingival microleakage was observed in primary teeth than in permanent teeth (pÃ0.01), while the occlusal microleakage values were similar (p>0.05). Irrespective of the tooth type and adhesive material, comparison of subgroups containing a liner material with those without one revealed no significant differences for both occlusal and gingival microleakage values (p>0.05). Conclusions: Occlusal microleakage was similar in both primary and permanent teeth, while a lesser extent of gingival seal was observed in primary teeth. Overall, placement of a liner material did not improve resistance to microleakage.

scholarly journals Amalgam and Composite Use among Dentists and Dental Interns in Saudi Arabia

2020 ◽  
pp. 6879-6887
Author(s):  
Rahaf Al-Safadi ◽  
Fatimah Radwan ◽  
Leenah Al-Momin ◽  
Raghad Bakhsh ◽  
Sarah Slais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cavity Depth ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Mandibular Molar ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Tooth Type ◽  
Amalgam Restorations

Aim: The aim of this study was to detect the use of amalgam versus resin composite restorations placed in permanent posterior vital teeth among dentists practicing in Saudi Arabia and dental interns training in Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: 318 patients aged ≥ 8 years were randomly selected and clinically examined for amalgam and resin composite restorations placed in permanent posterior vital teeth by dentists and by dental interns in Saudi Arabia. The restorations were placed in teeth preparations Class I and Class II. Also, bitewing and or periapical radiographs were used to define the depth of the cavity. The data obtained were documented in a patient examination form then statistically analyzed using Chi-Square Test or Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient. Results: Composite was the predominant kind of restoration placed by dental interns, and dentists placed more composite restorations than amalgam ones. There was an insignificant relationship between the kind of restoration placed by dental interns (amalgam, composite) and the tooth type (maxillary / mandibular premolar, maxillary / mandibular molar), the class of tooth preparation, the cavity depth, the age of the patient, and the gender of the patient p> 0.05. However, there was a significant relationship between the kind of restoration placed by dentists (amalgam, composite) and the cavity depth p < 0.05. Also, dentists placed more composite restorations in maxillary first premolars and in young patients 8-29 years, while they placed more amalgam restorations in mandibular second molars and in older patients 41-50 years p < 0.05. There was an insignificant relationship between the kind of restoration placed by dentists (amalgam, composite) and the class of cavity preparation and the gender of the patient p > 0.05. Conclusion: Both dentists and dental interns used composite restorative material more than amalgam, but dentists placed more amalgam restorations than dental interns. Dental interns mainly used composite. Keywords: Amalgam, Composite, Class, Dentist, Depth, Intern, Type.

scholarly journals In Vitro Comparison of Microleakage of Posterior Resin Composites With and Without Liner Using Two-Step Etch-and-Rinse and Self-etch Dentin Adhesive Systems

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Kasraei ◽  
M Azarsina ◽  
S Majidi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Sandwich Technique ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
In Vitro Comparison

Clinical Relevance The use of resin-modified glass ionomers as cavity liners in the closed-sandwich technique reduced microleakage in Class II composite restorations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document