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.

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.

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.

Clinical Evaluation of Noncarious Cervical Lesions of Different Extensions Restored With Bulk-fill or Conventional Resin Composite: Preliminary Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E11-E20
Author(s):  
AMO Correia ◽  
ALB Jurema ◽  
MR Andrade ◽  
ALS Borges ◽  
E Bresciani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY Purpose: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the influence of the occlusogingival distance (OGD) of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill resin composite and a regular nanofilled resin composite. Methods and Materials: A total of 140 restorations were randomly placed in 77 participants by one operator. NCCLs were divided into four groups (n=35) according to OGD (1.5 mm±10% or 3 mm±10%) and resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior [B] or Filtek Z350 XT [C]) used: 1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, 3 mm-B, and 3 mm-C. A two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) was applied following manufacturer instructions in all restorative procedures. Restorations were polished 1 week after placement. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (7 days), 6 months, and 1 year by two calibrated examiners, according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria evaluating fractures/retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, recurrence of caries, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for intergroup comparison in each follow-up; the Friedman analysis of variance, followed by the least significant difference test (multiple comparisons) was used for intragroup comparison between baseline and follow-up times (α=0.05). Results: Two restorations were lost at 12 months (1 for 1.5 mm-B and 1 for 3 mm-B). The retention rates at 12 months were 100% for 1.5 mm-C, 97% for 1.5 mm-B, 100% for 3 mm-C; and 97% for 3 mm-B, with no statistical difference among the groups (p=0.570). At 12 months, a statistically significant difference was found among the follow-up times for the same group (1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, and 3 mm-B) regarding the marginal staining criterion; moreover, the 3 mm-C group showed a significant difference from 6 months. No significant difference was found for the other parameters. Conclusion: Both resin composites showed acceptable clinical performance, and the OGD of NCCLs did not influence the clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 12 months.

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.

scholarly journals Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale Criteria: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcia de Almeida Durão ◽  
Ana Karina Maciel de Andrade ◽  
Maria do Carmo Moreira da Silva Santos ◽  
Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes ◽  
Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Public Health Service ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Resin Composites

Abstract Objective This study was aimed to compare the 12-month clinical performance of two full-body bulk-fill resin composites Filtek bulk fill/3M ESPE (FBF) and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill/Ivoclar Vivadent (TBF) and a conventional microhybrid resin composite Filtek Z250/3M ESPE (Z250) using the modified the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Also, the agreement between the two evaluation criteria was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up. Materials and Methods A total of 138 class I and II restorations were placed in posterior teeth (split-mouth design) of 46 volunteers following manufacturer’s instructions and bonded with a self-etching bonding agent (Clear fill SE Bond/Kuraray). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up by three previously calibrated dentists (Cohen’s K = 0.84). Statistical Analysis Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test were used to evaluating the homogeneity of distribution of the clinical characteristics. Friedman’s test was applied to evaluate differences among the resin composites. The results obtained for the USPHS and FDI criteria at the different observation times were compared using the Wilcoxon test. A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted for all tests. Results After 12 months (recall rate, 78.3%, n = 36 patients), the overall success rate was 99.07% for both criteria. Only one failed restoration (0.93%) was detected for each system during follow-up in the TBF group. Conclusion The bulk-fill resin composites showed satisfactory clinical performance compared with conventional resin composite after 12 months. The percentage of the acceptable scores was significantly higher for the USPHS criteria, due to discrepancies in the score description for each criterion.

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.

Clinical Comparison of Bur- and Laser-prepared Minimally Invasive Occlusal Resin Composite Restorations: Two-year Follow-up

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 500-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. Yazici ◽  
M. Baseren ◽  
J. Gorucu
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Clinical Comparison ◽  
Prepared Composite

Clinical Relevance The laser could be a promising alternative for minimally invasive occlusal resin composite cavity preparations, as its clinical performance was similar to bur-prepared composite restorations.

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.

Five-year Randomized Clinical Trial on the Performance of Two Etch-and-rinse Adhesives in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
TP Matos ◽  
TA Hanzen ◽  
R Almeida ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
MC Bandeca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Dihydrogen Phosphate ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Repeated Measures Anova ◽  
Etch And Rinse

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL). Methods and Materials: The sample comprised 35 adults with at least two similar-sized NCCL. Seventy restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) and Ambar (AM). The restorations were placed incrementally using a resin composite (Opallis). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months and 5 years using some items of the FDI criteria. The differences in the ratings of the two materials after 6 months, 18 months, and 5 years were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05). Results: Five patients did not attend the 60-month recall. No significant differences were observed between the materials for any criteria evaluated. Twenty-one restorations failed (12 for SB and 9 for AM) after 60 months. Thus, the retention rate for SB at 60 months were 55.6% for SB and 71% for AM (p=0.32). After 60 months, 12 restorations (6 for SB and 6 AM) showed some loss of marginal adaptation (p=1.0). Slight marginal discoloration was observed in 10 restorations (6 for SB and 4 AM; p=0.91). Five restorations (2 for SB and 3 for AM) showed recurrences of caries (p=1.0). Conclusions: Both two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives—Adper Single Bond 2, a polyalkenoic acid-containing adhesive, and Ambar, a 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-containing adhesive—showed acceptable clinical performance after 60 months.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document