The clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material, Heliomolar R.O.: 3-year report

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.

Two-year clinical comparison of a flowable-type nano-hybrid composite and a paste-type composite in posterior restoration

AIM

The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical efficacy between a flowable-type nano-hybrid composite and a paste-type composite for posterior restoration.

METHODS

Of 62 posterior teeth in 33 patients (mean age: 34.1 years), 31 were filled with a paste-type composite (Heliomolar [HM] group), and another 31 with a flowable nano-hybrid composite (MI FIL [MI] group). Clinical efficacy was evaluated at 2 years after the restoration.

RESULTS

There were no differences for retention, surface texture deterioration, anatomical form change, deterioration of marginal adaptation, and secondary caries, while a statistical difference was found for marginal discoloration, which was significantly greater in the HM group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, color matching in the MI group was superior to that in the HM group immediately after the restoration throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The present 2-year clinical evaluation of different composites showed that the flowable nano-hybrid composite could be an effective esthetic material for posterior restoration.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth

BACKGROUND

Amalgam has been the traditional material for filling cavities in posterior teeth for the last 150 years and, due to its effectiveness and cost, amalgam is still the restorative material of choice in certain parts of the world. In recent times, however, there have been concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings), relating to the mercury release in the body and the environmental impact following its disposal. Resin composites have become an esthetic alternative to amalgam restorations and there has been a remarkable improvement of its mechanical properties to restore posterior teeth.There is need to review new evidence comparing the effectiveness of both restorations.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth, primarily on restoration failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 October 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 October 2013), and LILACs via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 22 October 2013). We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We contacted manufacturers of dental materials to obtain any unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing dental resin composites with dental amalgams in permanent posterior teeth. We excluded studies having a follow-up period of less than three years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 2205 retrieved references, we included seven trials (10 articles) in the systematic review. Two trials were parallel group studies involving 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations (921 children) in the analysis. The other five trials were split-mouth studies involving 1620 composite restorations and 570 amalgam restorations in an unclear number of children. Due to major problems with the reporting of the data for the five split-mouth trials, the primary analysis is based on the two parallel group trials. We judged all seven trials to be at high risk of bias and we analyzed 3265 composite restorations and 1935 amalgam restorations.The parallel group trials indicated that resin restorations had a significantly higher risk of failure than amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35, P value < 0.001 (fixed-effect model) (low-quality evidence)) and increased risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74, P value < 0.001 (low-quality evidence)) but no evidence of an increased risk of restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64, P value = 0.66 (moderate-quality evidence)). The results from the split-mouth trials were consistent with those of the parallel group trials.Adverse effects of dental restorations were reported in two trials. The outcomes considered were neurobehavioral function, renal function, psychosocial function, and physical development. The investigators found no difference in adverse effects between composite and amalgam restorations. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as none of the outcomes were reported in more than one trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence to suggest that resin composites lead to higher failure rates and risk of secondary caries than amalgam restorations. This review reinforces the benefit of amalgam restorations and the results are particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Though the review found insufficient evidence to support or refute any adverse effects amalgam may have on patients, new research is unlikely to change opinion on its safety and due to the decision for a global phase-down of amalgam (Minamata Convention on Mercury) general opinion on its safety is unlikely to change.

Mechanical performance of novel bioactive glass containing dental restorative composites

OBJECTIVES

Bioactive glass (BAG) is known to possess antimicrobial properties and release ions needed for remineralization of tooth tissue, and therefore may be a strategic additive for dental restorative materials. The objective of this study was to develop BAG containing dental restorative composites with adequate mechanical properties comparable to successful commercially available composites, and to confirm the stability of these materials when exposed to a biologically challenging environment.

METHODS

Composites with 72 wt% total filler content were prepared while substituting 0-15% of the filler with ground BAG. Flexural strength, fracture toughness, and fatigue crack growth tests were performed after several different soaking treatments: 24h in DI water (all experiments), two months in brain-heart infusion (BHI) media+Streptococcus mutans bacteria (all experiments) and two months in BHI media (only for flexural strength). Mechanical properties of new BAG composites were compared along with the commercial composite Heliomolar by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparison test (p≤0.05).

RESULTS

Flexural strength, fracture toughness, and fatigue crack growth resistance for the BAG containing composites were unaffected by increasing BAG content up to 15% and were superior to Heliomolar after all post cure treatments. The flexural strength of the BAG composites was unaffected by two months exposure to aqueous media and a bacterial challenge, while some decreases in fracture toughness and fatigue resistance were observed. The favorable mechanical properties compared to Heliomolar were attributed to higher filler content and a microstructure morphology that better promoted the toughening mechanisms of crack deflection and bridging.

SIGNIFICANCE

Overall, the BAG containing composites developed in this study demonstrated adequate and stable mechanical properties relative to three successful commercial composites.

Current trends in dental composites

The clinical performance of dental composites has been significantly improved over the past decade through modifications in formulation that include: using more stable polymerization promoters for greater color stability; incorporating high concentrations of finely ground fillers to produce adequate strength and excellent wear resistance while retaining translucency; adding radiopacifying agents for improved diagnostics; and utilizing dentin adhesives. However, there are problems which limit the use of composites, especially in posterior teeth. The materials remain very technique-sensitive, due to the extensive contraction which accompanies polymerization and negatively influences marginal sealing. In addition, the materials are generally considered to have inadequate mechanical properties and wear resistance in contact areas to serve as total replacements for amalgams. Current efforts are focusing on several areas, including the development of non- or minimally-shrinking dental composites containing spiro-orthocarbonates as additives to dimethacrylates or epoxy-base resins, and the production of alternative filler materials for ideal wear resistance and esthetics. This paper reviews the composition and characteristics of current dental composites, as well as recent areas of study.