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<0.001) but not for NHC (p>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.

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>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>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.

24-Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins in Class II Restorations

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-133
Author(s):  
T Guney ◽  
AR Yazici
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Posterior Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Molar Teeth

SUMMARY The objective of this study was to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of three different bulk-fill restorative resin materials in class II restorations. Forty patients with at least three approximal lesions in premolar and molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 120 class II cavities were restored using Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (n=40), SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono (n=40), and everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior (n=40) with their respective adhesives according to the manufacturers' instructions. All restorations were placed by one operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using modified US Public Health Service criteria by one examiner. The restoration groups for each category were compared using the Pearson chi-square test, while the Cochran Q-test was used to compare the changes across different time points within each restorative material (p<0.05). At the end of 24 months, 94 restorations were evaluated in 33 patients, with a recall rate of 82.5%. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of retention (p>0.05). At the 24-month recall, two restorations from the SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono group and four from the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group showed slight marginal discoloration and were rated as bravo. No marginal discoloration was observed in any of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill restorations. Six restorations from the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill group, six from the SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X mono group, and 12 from the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group received bravo scores in terms of marginal adaptation. No difference was found among the three groups for any of the evaluation criteria tested (p>0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the baseline and 24-month recall in the everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior group in terms of marginal discoloration (p<0.05). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was observed between baseline and 24 months for all the restorative resins (p<0.05). All the restorative resins tested performed similarly and showed acceptable clinical performance during the 24-month evaluation.

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.

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 The Short-term Clinical Performance of a Silorane-based Resin Composite in the Proximal Contacts of Class II Restorations

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabiana Santos Gonçalves ◽  
Carolina Dolabela Leal Castro ◽  
Audrey Cristina Bueno ◽  
Amanda Beatriz Dadah Aniceto de Freitas ◽  
Alysson Nogueira Moreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Rank Tests ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Signed Rank ◽  
Significant Difference

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the proximal contact of a silorane-based resin composite with a conventional methacrylate-based resin composite in class II restorations after a 6 months follow-up period. Materials and methods After obtaining informed consent, 33 patients were randomly allocated into a test group (Filtek P90/Adhesive System-3M ESPE) or control group (Filtek P60/ Adper SE Plus-3M ESPE), and 100 direct resin composite restorations (n = 50) were placed. A single operator performed the cavities and restorations. After rubber dam placement, a metal matrix and wooden wedge were placed. The restorative systems were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 1 week, the restorations were finished and polished. The proximal contacts were assessed blindly and independently by two calibrated examiners (kW = 0.8) at the baseline and after 6 months according to a three-step grading criteria. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed Rank tests (α = 0.05). Results: After 6 months, 96% of the restoration contacts were present for evaluation. The frequencies of restorations classified as Bravo in control and test groups were 6 and 8% at the baseline, and 6.25 and 12.75% after 6 months. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test) neither between baseline and 6 months period (p > 0.05; Wilcoxon signed Rank tests). Conclusion Both materials performed satisfactorily over 6 months follow-up period. Clinical significance The short-term clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in the proximal contacts of class II restorations was similar to the well-known methacrylate-based resin composite. How to cite this article Gonçalves FS, Castro CDL, Bueno AC, de Freitas ABDA, Moreira AN, Magalhães CS. The Shortterm Clinical Performance of a Silorane-based Resin Composite in the Proximal Contacts of Class II Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3):251-256.

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.

Three-year Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial of Class II Restorations Using Flowable Bulk-fill Resin Composites

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
MD Moda ◽  
AF Briso ◽  
IAE Hoshino ◽  
SMB Frascino ◽  
PH Santos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Oral Care ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Surface Staining ◽  
Equality Test ◽  
Over Time

SUMMARY Objectives: This randomized, prospective, and split-mouth study aimed to evaluate flowable bulk-fill resin composites in class II restorations and to compare with a conventional layering technique after a 3-year follow-up. Methods and Materials: Fifty-three subjects received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional microhybrid resin composite (PA, Peak Universal + Amelogen Plus, Ultradent), flowable bulk-fill and nanoparticulate resin composites (ABF, Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Bulk Fill Flow + Filtek Z350XT, 3M Oral Care), and flowable bulk-fill and microhybrid resin composites (XST, XP Bond + SDR + TPH3, Dentsply). The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using the equality test of two proportions, Logistic regression analysis, Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests (α=0.05). Results: Forty-seven patients were evaluated at 3 years. XST bulk-fill restorative system presented higher marginal discoloration than PA, and the opposite occurred for surface staining. All restorative systems resulted in decreased interproximal contacts, occurring early for XST. Conclusions: Although the restorative system using incremental technique presented better performance for marginal discoloration, one of the restorative systems that used flowable bulk-fill resin composite (XST) showed the lowest surface staining. All restorative systems had decreased proximal contact over time.

scholarly journals Influence of "soft start" polymerization on marginal sealing in resin composite restorations

2003 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larisa Blazic ◽  
Slavoljub Zivkovic
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Nitrate Solution ◽  
Silver Nitrate Solution ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Human Teeth ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Soft Start ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bonding Systems

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal microleakage in Class II with different materials in resin composite restorations cured by using "soft start" and standard polymerization techniques. Two adhesive Class II cavities were prepared in 50 human teeth with enamel in-between. Samples were divided into 5 groups and filled with composite resins, compatible flow resin composites and bonding systems. The ocluso-mesial restorations were cured with standard curing technique, and the ocluso-distal restorations were cured with "soft start" curing technique. After thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in silver nitrate solution and sectioned for leakage evaluation. The results pointed out, after "soft start" and standard curing techniques, that the best marginal behavior in Class II restorations was obtained with Tetric Ceram / Tetric Flow composite resins, then with Filtek Z 250 / Filtek Flow, followed by Admira Admira Flow and Point / Revolution composite materials. The deepest dye penetration was found in cavities with Diamond Lite / Diamond Link composite restorations. No statistically significant difference was found in the tested composite resin restorations, whether treated with "soft start" polymerization or with standard polymerization technique, in regard to marginal micro leakage.

Role of Additional Retention on Marginal Adaptation and Sealing of Large Resin Composite Class II Restorations

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 564-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Ishikiriama ◽  
R. F. L. Mondelli ◽  
S. C. Kano ◽  
A. Ishikiriama ◽  
J. Mondelli
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Marginal Adaptation

Clinical Relevance Retention grooves in proximal box cavities can minimize microleakage and improve marginal adaptation of large resin composite Class II restorations.

COMPARISON OF PROXIMAL IN VITRO TOOTH CONTACTS IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS WITH DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS AND CAVITY SIZES USING A NEW MEASUREMENT DEVICE

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (04) ◽  
pp. 1550057
Author(s):  
WEN-JEN CHANG ◽  
YEN-HSIANG CHANG ◽  
HSUAN WANG ◽  
CHUN-LI LIN
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Cavity Size ◽  
Measurement Device ◽  
Dental Floss ◽  
Pull Out ◽  
Amalgam Restoration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Restoration

This study used a newly developed proximal contact strength (PCS) device to evaluate the tightness of proximal tooth contact for Class II cavity size restoration with different materials using an auxiliary separation ring system. A measurement device based on the equilibrium of forces acted on the clamp rod converts a pull-out force between interdental spaces on a force sensing resistor to express the PCS. This device was designed using dental floss as the test end and can be moved with constant speed during measurement through a bevel gear that transforms the rotation of motor shaft into linear movement of clamp rod. A manikin model was used with 60 artificial first molars in which an mesial occlusal (MO) preparation was ground. Samples were divided into six groups (each n = 10) for simulating amalgam and resin composite restoration with three different cavity sizes. The different cavities were defined using the ratio of the actual isthmus width to the intercuspal width (W) to 1/3, 2/3 and 1. The PCS value in each sample was measured after restoration. The result showed that the mean PCS value and standard deviation were 2283.1 ± 216.5 gf, 2419.1 ± 375 gf and 1737.6 ± 372.7 g for 1/3 W, 2/3 W and W cavities of the amalgam restoration, respectively. The corresponding PCS values were 1178.0 ± 230.4 gf, 1205.8 ± 249.1 gf and 1247.0 ± 157.5 gf for 1/3 W, 2/3 W and W cavities of the resin composite restoration. PCS values with amalgam restoration were larger than those for resin composite restorations under the same cavity size. Large cavity (W) PCS might be lost with amalgam restoration. No significant difference was found in resin composite restoration PCS among the different cavity sizes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document