Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial)

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.

Download Full-text

A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: Amalgam versus resin composite

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.4103/1305-7456.175692 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 10 (01) ◽

pp. 016-022 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Hande Kemaloglu ◽

Tijen Pamir ◽

Huseyin Tezel

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Public Health Service ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Vas Scores ◽

To Receive ◽

Posterior Restorations ◽

Postoperative Sensitivity

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the performance and postoperative sensitivity of a posterior resin composite with that of bonded amalgam in 40 (n = 20) large sized cavities and to evaluate whether resin composite could be an alternative for bonded amalgam. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial. Twenty patients in need of at least two posterior restorations were recruited. Authors randomly assigned one half of the restorations to receive bonded amalgam and the other half to composite restorations. Forty bonded amalgams (n = 20) and composites (n = 20) were evaluated for their performance on modified-US Public Health Service criteria and postoperative sensitivity using visual analogue scale (VAS) for 36-months. Results: Success rate of this study was 100%. First clinical alterations were rated as Bravo after 1 year in marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and surface roughness for both amalgam and composite. At the 3rd year, overall “Bravo” rated restorations were 12 for bonded amalgam and 13 for resin composites. There were no significant differences among the VAS scores of composites and bonded amalgams for all periods (P > 0.05) except for the comparisons at the 3rd year evaluation (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, both resin composite and bonded amalgam were clinically acceptable. Postoperative sensitivity results tend to decrease more in composite restorations rather than amalgams. Therefore, it was concluded that posterior resin composite can be used even in large sized cavities.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/18-256-c ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

Key Engineering Materials ◽

10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.695.3 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 695 ◽

pp. 3-11 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sanda Mihaela Popescu ◽

Mihaela Jana Ţuculină ◽

Horia Octavian Manolea ◽

Veronica Mercuţ ◽

Monica Scrieciu

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.

Download Full-text

Clinical Evaluation of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth - Results of 2.5 Year Follow-up

The Open Dentistry Journal ◽

10.2174/1874210601812010476 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 476-485 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Johanna Tanner ◽

Mimmi Tolvanen ◽

Sufyan Garoushi ◽

Eija Säilynoja

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Fiber Composite ◽

Short Fiber ◽

Fiber Reinforced ◽

Posterior Teeth ◽

Fiber Reinforced Composite ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Reinforced Composite ◽

Short Fiber Composite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of posterior composite restorations reinforced by bulk base of short-fiber composite (everX Posterior, GC Corporation). Methods: Thirty-six short fiber-reinforced composite restorations were placed in premolar and molar teeth of 33 patients. Eight of the teeth were vital and 28 were non-vital. Average follow up time of the restorations was 30.6 months (2.5 years), ranging from 16.2 to 51.3 months (1.3 - 4.3 years). Results: One restoration failed during the follow-up period due to secondary caries, at time point 39.5 months. Three fillings had minor fractures during the follow-up. The overall survival rate of the restorations was 97.2% and success rate (no maintenance needed) was 88.9%, respectively. Conclusion: Posterior composite restorations with a bulk base of short-fiber composite showed good clinical performance in the short term evaluation.

Download Full-text