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>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>0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p>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.

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>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<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.

scholarly journals Feldspathic and Lithium Disilicate Onlays with a 2-Year Follow-Up: Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
Guilherme de Siqueira Ferreira Anzaloni Saavedra ◽  
João Paulo Mendes Tribst ◽  
Nathália de Carvalho Ramos ◽  
Renata Marques de Melo ◽  
Vinícius Anéas Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ceramics ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Term Trial ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Abstract The present study was a prospective, controlled, randomized, clinical short-term trial aiming to evaluate the clinical performance of adhesively luted, lithium disilicate and feldspathic glass-ceramics onlays over a period up to 2 years. A total of 11 patients (7 female, 4 male; age range: 18-60 years, mean age: 39 years) were selected for this study. Each patient received a maximum of two restorations per group in a split-mouth-design. LD: Eleven onlays, performed with lithium disilicate-based ceramic (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), and FP: Eleven onlays, performed with feldspathic ceramic (Vita Mark II, Vita Zanhfabrik, Bad Säckingen). Recalls were performed at 2 weeks (baseline = R1), 1 year (R2) and 2 years (R3) after the cementation by three calibrated blinded independent investigators using mirrors, magnifying eyeglasses, probes and bitewing radiographs. The postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, color match, surface roughness, tooth integrity, and restoration integrity were evaluated. The Friedman test was used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in time-to-time comparison of the parameters in the ceramics restorations. A total of 95.4% of the restorations were clinically acceptable at the 2-year recall, without a difference for any evaluation parameter for both ceramic materials. Based on the 2-year data, the CAD-CAM onlays manufactured with feldspathic and lithium-disilicate based ceramics showed similar clinical performance.

Clinical Performance of Filled/Nanofilled Versus Nonfilled Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. E34-E59
Author(s):  
JL de Geus ◽  
BM Maran ◽  
KA Cabral ◽  
A Dávila-Sánchez ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference

Clinical Relevance The use of filled adhesive systems does not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive restoration in noncarious cervical lesions. SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical performance of filled vs unfilled adhesive systems when applied in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE. Gray literature was also screened. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included. The risk of bias of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rate, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries of noncarious cervical lesions restored with filled adhesives vs unfilled adhesives. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 3662 studies were identified after removal of duplicates. Twenty-nine studies remained for qualitative analyses and 28 studies for the meta-analysis. Only one study was judged to have a low risk of bias, and the other 28 were considered to have unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between filled adhesives compared with unfilled adhesives in relation to loss of retention, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries at any of the follow-up periods (12–18 months, 24–30 months, 3 years, and 5 years or longer). The quality of evidence was graded as moderate for most outcomes at the respective follow-ups, except when there was an explained heterogeneity, which occurred mainly for loss of retention at the 12-month to 3-year follow-up. The results did not depend on whether microfilled or nanofilled adhesives had been investigated. Conclusions: The addition of fillers into the composition of adhesive systems did not increase the clinical performance (retention rates, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries) of composite restorations placed in noncarious cervical lesions when compared with unfilled adhesives.

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.

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 &gt; Filtek Z250 &gt; 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 Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Following Restoration of Class I Lesions with Different Restorative Materials: An In Vivo Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 650-654
Author(s):  
Kirti Rathee ◽  
Uzma Mushtaq ◽  
Farheen Mushtaq ◽  
Divyangana Thakur ◽  
Neelam Poonia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Class I ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

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&lt;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.

XP Bond in Self-Cure Mode Used for Luting Porcelain Restorations: 4-year Recall

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-73
Author(s):  
Maria Crysanti Cagidiaco ◽  
Cecilia Goracci ◽  
Antonella Polimeni
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Clinical Examination ◽  
Clinical Service ◽  
Clinical Parameters ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Fracture Parameters ◽  
Vitality Test ◽  
Clinical Conditions ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

ABSTRACT Purpose The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate some clinical parameters of Empress II restorations luted under clinical conditions with XP Bond in combination with SCA and Calibra cured in self-cure mode after 4 years of clinical service. Materials and methods Fifty-three restorations were placed in 38 patients from March 2006 until April 2006. No patient received more than two restorations. Luting procedures were performed following manufacturers’ instructions. The restorations were evaluated for postoperative sensitivity, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, secondary caries, maintenance of interproximal contact and fracture at baseline, after 2 weeks, 6 months, 1, 2, 3 and 4 years of clinical service. Results At the 4-year recall 49 restorations were reevaluated. The clinical examination showed that postoperative sensitivity did not affect any restoration. Only 5 restorations of 49 showed bravo score and 2 charlie for marginal integrity/stain.1 restoration showed bravo score at vitality test and another restoration for interproximal contact. Secondary caries, retention and fracture parameters showed alpha scores. Conclusion All the evaluated restorations were in place and acceptable. The postoperative sensitivity recorded after using XP BOND with SCA and Calibra in self-cure mode was clinically acceptable after 4 years of clinical service and no serious endodontic complications were recorded.

scholarly journals Clinical performance of class I occlusal composite resin restorations: a multicenter double-blinded randomized clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Bruno Mendonça Lucena De Veras ◽  
Geórgia Pires dos Santos Menezes ◽  
Hugo Leonardo Mendes Barros ◽  
Marcelya Chrystian Moura Rocha ◽  
Aditonio De Carvalho Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Dental Restoration ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Class I ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the 6-month clinical performance of class I occlusal composite resin restorations through a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. <strong>Material e Métodos: </strong>Two hundred and eighty class I occlusal restorations were performed in 70 patients (aged between 17 to 50 years).  The restorations were divided into four groups: G1 (Filtek P60/3M ESPE); G2 (Rok/SDI); G3 (Filtek™ P90/3M ESPE); G4 (Evolux/Dentsply). Two pre-calibrated dental practitioners performed and evaluated the restorative procedures regarding to color match, marginal discoloration, recurrent caries, wear (anatomic form) and marginal integrity according to the USPHS criteria. <strong>Resultados: </strong>In 85.8% of the evaluated restorations was observed the ideal score (A) for color match; 91.4% for marginal discoloration; 100% for recurrent caries; 87.7% for wear (anatomic form) and 99.3% for marginal integrity.<strong> Conclusion: </strong>The composite resins used in this study presented satisfactory and similar clinical performance in a 6-month clinical evaluation.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong></p><p>Dentistry; Composite resins; Permanent dental restoration; Molar; Bicuspid.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document