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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

scholarly journals Assessment of first molars sagittal and rotational position in Class II, division 1 malocclusion

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 106-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo Estevão Scanavini ◽  
Renata Pilli Jóias ◽  
Maria Helena Ferreira Vasconcelos ◽  
Marco Antonio Scanavini ◽  
Luiz Renato Paranhos
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
The Right ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the anterior-posterior positioning of the upper and lower first molars, and the degree of rotation of the upper first molars in individuals with Class II, division 1, malocclusion. METHODS: Asymmetry I, an accurate device, was used to assess sixty sets of dental casts from 27 females and 33 males, aged between 12 and 21 years old, with bilateral Class II, division 1. The sagittal position of the molars was determined by positioning the casts onto the device, considering the midpalatal suture as a symmetry reference, and then measuring the distance between the mesial marginal ridge of the most distal molar and the mesial marginal ridge of its counterpart. With regard to the degree of rotation of the upper molar, the distance between landmarks on the mesial marginal ridge was measured. Chi-square test with a 5% significance level was used to verify the variation in molars position. Student's t test at 5% significance was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A great number of lower molars mesially positioned was registered, and the comparison between the right and left sides also demonstrated a higher number of mesially positioned molars on the right side of both arches. The average rotation of the molars was found to be 0.76 mm and 0.93 mm for the right and left sides, respectively. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was detected between the mean values of molars mesialization regardless of the side and arch. Molars rotation, measured in millimeters, represented ¼ of Class II.

Clinical Evaluation of a Two-step Etch&Rinse and a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive System in Class II Restorations: Two-year Results

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 656-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Ermis ◽  
O. Kam ◽  
E. U. Celik ◽  
U. B. Temel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance The two-step etch&rinse and the two-step self-etch adhesive systems tested in this study demonstrated similar clinical performance in Class II cavities after two years.

Marginal Gap Formation in Approximal “Bulk Fill” Resin Composite Restorations After Artificial Ageing

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Peutzfeldt ◽  
S Mühlebach ◽  
A Lussi ◽  
S Flury
Keyword(s):  
Tap Water ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Artificial Ageing ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Marginal Gap ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the marginal gap formation of a packable “regular” resin composite (Filtek Supreme XTE [3M ESPE]) and two flowable “bulk fill” resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill [3M ESPE] and SDR [DENTSPLY DeTrey]) along the approximal margins of Class II restorations. In each of 39 extracted human molars (n=13 per resin composite), mesial and distal Class II cavities were prepared, placing the gingival margins below the cemento-enamel junction. The cavities were restored with the adhesive system OptiBond FL (Kerr) and one of the three resin composites. After restoration, each molar was cut in half in the oro-vestibular direction between the two restorations, resulting in two specimens per molar. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken and “baseline” replicas were produced. The specimens were then divided into two groups: At the beginning of each month over the course of six months' tap water storage (37°C), one specimen per molar was subjected to mechanical toothbrushing, whereas the other was subjected to thermocycling. After artificial ageing, “final” replicas were produced. Baseline and final replicas were examined under the scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the SEM micrographs were used to determine the percentage of marginal gap formation in enamel or dentin. Paramarginal gaps were registered. The percentages of marginal gap formation were statistically analyzed with a nonparametric analysis of variance followed by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and all p-values were corrected with the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple testing (significance level: α=0.05). Paramarginal gaps were analyzed descriptively. In enamel, significantly lower marginal gap formation was found for Filtek Supreme XTE compared to Filtek Bulk Fill (p=0.0052) and SDR (p=0.0289), with no significant difference between Filtek Bulk Fill and SDR (p=0.4072). In dentin, significantly lower marginal gap formation was found for SDR compared to Filtek Supreme XTE (p<0.0001) and Filtek Bulk Fill (p=0.0015), with no significant difference between Filtek Supreme XTE and Filtek Bulk Fill (p=0.4919). Marginal gap formation in dentin was significantly lower than in enamel (p<0.0001). The percentage of restorations with paramarginal gaps varied between 0% and 85%, and for all three resin composites the percentages were markedly higher after artificial ageing. The results from this study suggest that in terms of marginal gap formation in enamel, packable resin composites may be superior to flowable “bulk fill” resin composites, while in dentin some flowable “bulk fill” resin composites may be superior to packable ones.

scholarly journals Comparing the Ability of Various Resin-Based Composites and Techniques to Seal Margins in Class-II Cavities

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 2921
Author(s):  
Abdullah Saleh Aljamhan ◽  
Sultan Ali Alhazzaa ◽  
Abdulrahman Hamoud Albakr ◽  
Syed Rashid Habib ◽  
Muhammad Sohail Zafar
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
The Self ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Sandwich Technique ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Self Etch

Background: Resin-based composites (RBCs) provide excellent esthetics but the marginal micro-leakage in the proximal cavities remains a major concern. The aim of the present study was to assess the ability of various dental RBCs and techniques utilized for sealing deep dentin margin in class-II cavities. Methods: Box-cavities (class-II) on the distal and mesial surfaces of extracted (premolar) teeth were prepared with a gingival margin placed 1mm apical to the cemento-enamel junction. Teeth with prepared class II cavities were randomly divided into four study groups according to the type of restorative materials (conventional RBC; bulk-fill RBC; conventional RBC lined with flowable RBC and conventional RBC lined with resin-modified glass-ionomer-cement (GIC) as open sandwich-technique). Each group was further subdivided into a total-etch subgroup in which a separate etching step was performed before applying the bonding agent and a self-etch subgroup in which a self-etch adhesive system was used (n = 10). For each group, cavities were restored using the respective restorative materials and techniques, subjected to 1000 thermocycles, and placed in the methylene-blue dye. The specimen teeth were sectioned for further microscopic examination for micro-leakage. Results: The least dye penetration values were reported for group 4 (GIC) followed by the group Bulk-fill using the self-etch adhesive system (group 2b). The highest dye penetration was reported for the group Bulk-fill using the total-etch adhesive system (2a), followed by the group conventional RBC using the total-etch adhesive system). The total-etch adhesive system had significantly greater micro-leakage compared to the self-etch adhesive system (1a) (p = 0.026). Conclusions: The self-etch adhesive system significantly reduced the micro-leakage compared to the total-etch system. Bulk-fill RBC when bonded with the self-etch adhesive provided good marginal sealing ability comparable to open sandwich-technique using GIC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document