Effects of lesion size on the 30-month clinical performance of restorations with bulk fill and a regular nanofilled resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions

Clinical performance of preheating thermoviscous composite resin for non-carious cervical lesions restoration: A 24-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This 24-month, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the retention rates of a preheated thermoviscous composite resin (PHT) compared to a non-heated composite resin (NHT) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS

A total of 120 restorations were restored on NCCLs using a preheated (VisCalor bulk, Voco GmbH) and a non-heated (Admira Fusion, Voco GmbH) composite resins with 60 restorations per group. A universal adhesive in the selective enamel conditioning was applied. In the PHT group, composite was heated at 68 °C for using a bench heater. In the NHT group, no heating was employed. Both restorative materials were dispensed into caps and inserted into the NCCLs. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and after 24 months of clinical service using the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier estimation analysis for retention/fracture rate and Chi-square test for the other FDI parameters (α=0.05).

RESULTS

After 24 months 108 restorations were assessed. Seven restorations were lost (two for PHT group and five for NHT group), and the retention rates (95 % confidence interval [CI]) were 96.7 % (81.5-99.9) for PHT group and 90.8 % (81.1-96.0) for NHT group, with no statistical differences between them (p > 0.05). The hazard ratio (95 % CI) was 0.52 (0.27 to 1.01), with no significant difference within groups. In terms of all other FDI parameters that were assessed, all restorations were deemed clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Both composites showed high rates of retention rates after 24 months.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The clinical performance of the new preheated thermoviscous was found to be as good as the non-heated composite after 24-month of clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions.

REGISTRATION OF CLINICAL TRIALS

RBR-6d6gxxz.

Color Match of a Universal-shade Composite Resin for Restoration of Non-carious Cervical Lesions: An Equivalence Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The objective of this double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the color match of a single-shade composite resin Admira Fusion X-tra in comparison with a multi-shade composite resin Admira Fusion in non-carious cervical lesion restorations (NCCLs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred and twenty restorations were performed on NCCLs with two restorative materials (n=60). After prophylaxis, the teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, and one universal adhesive was applied in the selective enamel etching strategy. For both groups, the restorations were inserted incrementally and light-cured. The values of the coordinates L*, a*, and b* in the cervical third before vs after the restorations and cervical vs middle third after the restorations were evaluated using a digital spectrophotometer after the coordinate values were used to calculate the CIEDE (ΔE00). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 7 days of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test for all parameters. Color change was analyzed by Student t-test for paired samples (α=0.05).

RESULTS

All restorations were evaluated after 7 days. Regarding the color measurement, no significant difference was observed when Admira Fusion was compared to Admira Fusion X-tra for any of the comparisons performed (p>0.05). However, the values of ΔE00 in the cervical third before vs after the restorations were higher when compared with ΔE00 observed when the cervical vs middle third after restorations were compared. All restorations received the score "clinically very good" after 7 days for all outcomes, including the subjective color match, when evaluated for FDI criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-shade composite resin used achieves the same color match when compared to a multi-shade composite resin after 7 days in NCCLs.

Various ways of pre-heating a bulk-fill thermoviscous composite in restoration in non-carious cervical lesions: 12-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate through a randomized clinical trial the best method to preheat a composite resin, if using a Caps dispenser device associated with Caps Warmer (CD) or with a VisCalor Caps dispenser/warmer (VD) for restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty restorations were distributed to two groups (n = 60) according to the pre-heating way of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite resin. For the CD group, pre-heating was carried at 68 °C using a heating bench for 3 min. For the VD group, pre-heating was performed at 68 °C using a heating gun for 30 s. After that, pre-heated bulk-fill composites were directly inserted in the NCCLs. The total working time was recorded. The restorations were evaluated after 6 and 12 months of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test for unpaired samples for working time, and the Chi-square test for restoration clinical performance (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Working time was shorter for VD with a statistically significant difference compared to CD (p = 0.01). Few restorations were lost or fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (p > 0.05). The retention rates were 96.7% (CI 95 %: 88.6-99.1%) for CD and 98.3% (CI 95 %: 91.1-99.7%) for VD. The other FDI parameters were considered clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The different pre-heating ways did not influence the clinical performance of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite restorations in NCCLs after 12 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Regardless of the bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin pre-heating ways, the restorations are clinically acceptable after 12 months.