Two-year Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of a Flowable and Conventional Composite in Class I Restorations

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 594-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
NC Lawson ◽  
R Radhakrishnan ◽  
DA Givan ◽  
LC Ramp ◽  
JO Burgess
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class I ◽  
Cold Sensitivity ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Volumetric Wear ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Year

SUMMARY Objectives This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance and volumetric wear of a flowable resin composite compared to a conventional highly filled composite resin in Class I restorations. Methods and Materials In this single-center, single-blinded, comparator-controlled clinical study (Institutional Review Board approved), 120 carious teeth distributed in 60 patients were randomly assigned to four calibrated practitioners who placed occlusal restorations (n=60 flowable and n=60 conventional composite). Direct and indirect assessment at baseline, six months, one year, and two years occurred during which the modified Cvar and Ryge criteria were evaluated. Volumetric wear was determined by superimposition of profilometer scans of baseline and two-year casts. Results At two years, there was no significant difference in anatomic form (p=0.80), color match (p=0.08), marginal adaptation (p=0.89), marginal discoloration (p=0.79), surface integrity (p=0.18), secondary caries (p=0.66), cold sensitivity (p=0.522), occlusal sensitivity (p=0.818), or volumetric wear (p=0.661) between materials. Both materials showed a decrease in all criteria except secondary caries (p=0.95) over time. Two-year mean volumetric wear was 3.16 ± 2.38 mm3 for the flowable composite and 3.43 ± 2.50 mm3 for the conventional composite. Conclusions The flowable and conventional composites used in this study have similar clinical efficacy after two years of service when placed as Class I occlusal restorations having isthmus widths less than one-half the intercuspal distance.

scholarly journals One-Year Clinical Performance of the Fast-Modelling Bulk Technique and Composite-Up Layering Technique in Class I Cavities

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 1873
Author(s):  
Louis Hardan ◽  
Layla Sidawi ◽  
Murad Akhundov ◽  
Rim Bourgi ◽  
Maroun Ghaleb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class I ◽  
First Year ◽  
Restoration Technique ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Nonsignificant Difference ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

The aim of this study was to assess the one year clinical performance of a new application method, the Fast-Modelling Bulk Technique (FMBT), in comparison to the Composite-Up Layering Technique (CULT) in posterior cavities. Thirty patients with two class I cavities on permanent human molars were enrolled in the present study. A total of sixty class I cavities were prepared and randomly divided according to the restoration technique used: 30 cavities restored by incremental layering technique and modelling of the last layer with Composite-Up Technique (CUT) using the composite Filtek Z250XT (3M ESPE; St. Paul, MN, USA) and the other 30 restored by Bulk Filling technique and modelling of the last layer by Fast-Modelling Technique (FMT) using the composite Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (3M ESPE; St. Paul, MN, USA). Restorations were evaluated for up to one year by two observers according to Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria, through clinical and radiological exams. Exact Fisher tests were used for statistical analysis. (p ≤ 0.05). From a biological perspective, at baseline, teeth restored with both techniques did not reveal any postoperative sensitivity. However, with time, FMBT showed less postoperative sensitivity and therefore more desirable results than CULT with a nonsignificant difference after one year (p > 0.05). Concerning secondary caries, fracture of the material, and marginal adaptation, no significant difference was noted between both techniques (p > 0.05). Regarding marginal staining, CULT resulted in more staining with a significant difference, as compared to FMBT (p < 0.05). Upon radiological examination, FMBT showed a good marginal fit during the first year, whereas CULT showed small empty voids from baseline with a nonsignificant difference (p = 1.00). After one year of clinical function, both techniques showed promising results. The present study indicates that the new FMBT could have a positive effect on the marginal staining of resin composite.

Clinical Evaluation of Self-etch and Total-etch Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Two-year Report

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 477-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
JO Burgess ◽  
R Sadid-Zadeh ◽  
D Cakir ◽  
LC Ramp
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Dental Adhesive ◽  
Chronic Periodontal Disease ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Salivary Function ◽  
One Year ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two self-etch dental adhesives with Single Bond Plus, a traditional one-bottle total-etch dental adhesive, for the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions. Materials and Methods: A total of 156 restorations were placed in noncarious cervical lesions with a minimum depth of 1.5 mm. Patients had no chronic periodontal disease and had normal salivary function. Each patient received restorations on three teeth, each bonded with either Adper Single Bond Plus, Adper Easy Bond, or Adper Scotchbond SE dental adhesive. All lesions were restored with Filtek Supreme Plus composite resin. All teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, received a short enamel bevel, and were cleaned with flour of pumice. The adhesives and resin composite were applied following the manufacturers' instructions. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, six months, one year, and two years using modified US Public Health Service criteria. Results: Two-year retention was recorded as 97.3%, 90.5%, and 95.2%, for Single Bond Plus, Scotchbond SE, and Easy Bond, respectively. Statistical analysis did not show a significant difference (p&gt;0.05) in clinical performance between any of the three adhesives after a period of two years.

scholarly journals Clinical Performance of Direct Anterior Composite Restorations Using Esthetic Dual-Shade versus Polychromatic Natural Layering Technique: a split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 12p
Author(s):  
Ghada Ahmed Elzayat ◽  
Mai Elsayed Elsayed ◽  
Amira El Zoghby
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Dental Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trail

Objective: to evaluate the clinical performance of the dual shade layering and polychromatic resin composite layering techniques using a randomized controlled trail. Material and Methods: 42 participants (84 restorations) of class IV or class III through and through within a pair of anterior contra-lateral teeth   were randomly allocated into two groups according to technique of composite restoration placement: control “polychromatic layering” and intervention “dual-shade layering”. Follow-up was done at 1 month (baseline) and 1 year. Restorations were evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), restoration color shade match using Vita Easyshade V ®, and blinded assessor using FDI criteria for assessment of dental restorations measuring (aesthetic properties). Chi-square test was used to compare between restorations of both techniques. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between restorations of both techniques for patient satisfaction outcome, restorations color match outcome, and for all tested FDI outcomes except surface luster with 100% success. Conclusion: Both dual-shade layering and polychromatic natural layering techniques, exhibited acceptable clinical and esthetic performance.      Keywords Composite; Polychromatic layering technique; Dual-shade layering technique; Clinical performance.

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.

Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial of Class II Restorations Using Low-shrinkage Flowable Resin Composite

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
SMB Frascino ◽  
TC Fagundes ◽  
UAE Silva ◽  
V Rahal ◽  
ACS Barboza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Cold Sensitivity ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Different Types ◽  
One Year ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Equality Test

SUMMARYPurpose:The aim of this prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate postoperative sensitivity, clinical performance, and interproximal contacts after using different restorative systems.Methods and Materials:Fifty-three subjects each received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional resin composite (PA: Peak Universal+Amelogen Plus, Ultradent), low-shrinkage flowable and nanoparticulate resin composites (ABF: Adper Single Bond 2+Filtek Bulk Fill Flow+Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE), and low-shrinkage flowable and microhybrid resin composites (XST: XP Bond+SDR+TPH3, Dentsply). Postoperative sensitivity was assessed at 24 hours, seven days, 90 days, and six months. The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated at baseline, six months, and one year. Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate postoperative sensitivity and interproximal contacts. The equality test of two proportions and logistic regression analysis were used to assess the clinical performance.Results:No statistically significant differences were observed among groups for postoperative sensitivity. The highest spontaneous sensitivity was reported at 24 hours. ABF was the only group that did not present a reduction in cold sensitivity. Color, marginal discoloration, and superficial staining showed differences among the groups. XST did not show superficial staining after one year. No differences were observed among groups in relation to interproximal contacts. XST resulted in the loss of interproximal contact after one year.Conclusions:Different types of restorative systems do not influence postoperative sensitivity; however, ABF maintained cold sensitivity over time. Marginal discoloration occurred for all groups but occurred earliest for PA. XST presented a reduction of interproximal contact after one year of evaluation.

scholarly journals Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliano Sartori Mendonça ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro ◽  
Ranulfo Gianordoli Neto ◽  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Indirect Composite ◽  
One Year ◽  
Composite Inlays

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of direct resin composite restorations (Tetric Ceram-TC) and indirect composite inlays (Targis-TG) after 12 months. Methods and Materials Seventy-six Class I and II restorations (44 direct and 32 indirect) were inserted in premolars and molars with carious lesions or deficient restorations in 30 healthy patients according to the manufacturer's instructions. Each restoration was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months according to the modified USPHS criteria for color match (CM), marginal discoloration (MD), secondary caries (SC), anatomic form (AF), surface texture (ST), marginal integrity (MI), and pulp sensitivity (PS). Data were analyzed by Fisher and McNemar Chisquare tests. Results No secondary caries and no pulpal sensitivity were observed after 12 months. However, significant changes in marginal discoloration (MD) criteria could be detected between baseline and one-year results for both materials (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, the differences between baseline and oneyear recall were statistically significant (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, Tetric Ceram (TC) showed results statistically superior to Targis (TG) in both observation periods (p<0.05). No statistically significant changes in color match (CM), anatomic form (AF), or surface texture (ST) appeared during the observation periods (p>0.05). Conclusions Direct resin composite restorations performed better than indirect composite inlays for marginal integrity, but all restorations were judged to be clinically acceptable. Clinical Significance Tetric Ceram direct restorations and Targis indirect inlays in posterior teeth provide satisfactory clinical performance and the comparison between them showed little difference after one year. Citation Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL, Carvalho RM. Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 May; 11(3):025-032. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/ view/volume11-issue3-santiago.

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.

Impact of Resin Composite Viscosity and Fill-technique on Internal Gap in Class I Restorations: An OCT Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
KR Kantovitz ◽  
LL Cabral ◽  
NR Carlos ◽  
AZ de Freitas ◽  
DC Peruzzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Oral Care ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Class I ◽  
Low Viscosity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Internal Adaptation ◽  
Internal Gap

SUMMARY The aim of this in vitro study was to quantitatively evaluate the internal gap of resin composites of high-and low-viscosity used in single- and incremental-fill techniques in Class I cavities exposed to thermal cycling (TC) using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Cavities of 4-mm depth and 3-mm diameter were prepared in 36 third molars randomly distributed into four groups, according to viscosity of restorative resin-based composite (high or low viscosity, all from 3M Oral Care) and technique application (bulk or incremental fill) used (n=9): RC, high-viscosity, incremental-fill, resin-based composite (Filtek Z350 XT Universal Restorative); BF, high-viscosity, bulk-fill, resin-based composite (Filtek One Bulk Fill); LRC, low-viscosity, incremental-fill, resin-based composite (Filtek Z350 XT Flowable Universal Restorative); and LBF, low-viscosity, bulk-fill, resin-based composite (Filtek Flowable Restorative). Single Bond Universal Adhesive system (3M Oral Care) was used in all the experimental groups. The incremental-fill technique was used for RC and LRC groups (2-mm increments), and a single-layer technique was used for BF and LBF groups, as recommended by the manufacturer. The internal adaptation of the resin at all dentin walls was evaluated before and after TC (5000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C) using OCT images. Five images of each restored tooth were obtained. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software that measured the entire length of the gaps at the dentin–restoration interface. The length of gaps (μm) was analyzed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA and the Tukey tests (α=0.05). There was a significant interaction between material types and TC (p=0.006), and a significant difference among all material types (p&lt;0.0001), before and after TC (p&lt;0.0001). Increased internal gaps at the dentin–restoration interface were noticed after TC for all groups. RC presented the lowest value of internal gap before and after TC, while LBF showed the highest values of internal gap after TC. In conclusion, TC negatively affected the integrity of internal gap, whereas high-viscosity, incremental-fill, resin-based composite presented better performance in terms of internal adaptation than low-viscosity, bulk-fill materials in Class I cavities.

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.

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