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

Adhesive damage of class V restorations under shrinkage stress and occlusal forces using cohesive zone modeling

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate adhesive damage caused by the synergistic effects of polymerization shrinkage and occlusal forces via finite element analysis (FEA), based on damage mechanics with the cohesive zone model (CZM). The objective is to obtain the adhesive damage distribution and investigate how the material properties of resin composite impact adhesive damage.

METHODS

A 3D reconstruction model of an mandibular first molar was constructed through CBCT imaging, and a Class V cavity was prepared using computer-aided engineering (CAE) software. Common clinical resin composite and an universal adhesive were selected for restorative filling. A 3D FEA was performed, incorporating the pre-stress induced by polymerization shrinkage of the resin composite, followed by occlusal forces. The cohesive zone model (CZM) was employed to represent the adhesive damage. To emphasize the impact of synergistic loading on adhesive damage, three types of loads were separately applied to the model: polymerization shrinkage, occlusal forces, and combined loading. Subsequently, three clinical resin composites with varying polymerization shrinkage and elastic modulus were used as restorative materials. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on dozens of hypothetical materials to provide definitive results.

RESULTS

Polymerization shrinkage was undergone by the cured resin composite, resulting in extensive adhesive damage. Occlusal forces induced microdamage in regions already damaged by shrinkage stress, especially in the gingival wall. Predictably, the regions with severe adhesive damage were prone to marginal microleakage. The properties of the resin composite can affect adhesive damage. The adhesive damage with bulk-fill resin composite was milder than that with flowable and conventional resin composite. The extent of adhesive damage correlated markedly positively with the polymerization shrinkage of the resin composite and mildly positively with its elastic modulus.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adhesive damage has been directly implicated in marginal microleakage. The cohesive zone model (CZM) can effectively elucidate the distribution of adhesive damage and provide a clear representation of the impact of varying material properties of resin composite on adhesive damage.

Clinical performance of an ormocer-based single-shade resin composite for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 18-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This double-blind, split-mouth, randomized equivalence clinical trial aimed to evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of an ormocer-based single-shade resin composite compared with an ormocer-based multi-shade resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS

One hundred and twenty restorations were performed on NCCLs with two restorative materials (n = 60): Admira Fusion X-tra resin composite (ormocer-based single-shade), and Admira Fusion resin composite (ormocer-based multi-shade). After rubber dam isolation, a universal adhesive was applied in the selective enamel etching strategy. For both groups, restorations were inserted incrementally and light-cured. The restorations were clinically evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 months according to the updated FDI (World Dental Federation) criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and Mann-Whitney test for pairwise significance (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

All restorations were evaluated after 18 months, and nine restorations were lost. Fracture of the material and retention rates (95 % confidence interval [CI]) were 93 % (84-97 CI) for the ormocer-based single-shade and 91 % (82-96 CI) for the ormocer-based multi-shade, with no statistical differences between them (p > 0.05). The absolute risk (95 % CI) was 0.8 (0.2 to 3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The updated FDI evaluation criteria showed equivalent results for ormocer-based single-shade and ormocer-based multi-shade after 18 months.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Using an ormocer-based single-shade resin composite in NCCLs is advisable due to its convenience, ease of application, and lower cost compared to ormocer-based multi-shade composites without compromising clinical performance.

Clinical performance of different bulk-fill composite resin systems in class II cavities: A 2-year randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composite systems with different viscosities in class II cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 80 class II restorations were performed with a single operator in 50 patients using four different bulk-fill resin composite materials: Filtek™ Bulk Fill, Heated Filtek™ Bulk Fill, G-ænial™ BULK Injectable, and SonicFill3. A double-blinded randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of the four bulk-fill composite resins using modified FDI criteria. Data were analyzed descriptively. Level of significance was set at 0.05. Differences between groups were tested using Wilcoxon-signed-rank and Mann-Whitney-U test as nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (p < 0.05). Eighty restorations were available for evaluation, with a survival function of 100%. No statistically significant differences were observed between the four groups regarding assessing esthetic, functional, and biological properties during different follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2 years of clinical follow-up, the bulk-fill composite systems with different viscosities seem to be esthetically, functionally, and biologically acceptable, with a promising clinical performance in class II cavities.

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.

Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: an in vivo study with 18 months of follow-up

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of dentin roughening and the type of composite resin used (either bulk-fill flowable or nanohybrid) on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with an 18-month follow-up period.

Materials and Methods

This prospective split-mouth study included 36 patients, each with a minimum of 4 NCCLs. For each patient, 4 types of restorations were performed: unroughened dentin with nanohybrid composite, unroughened dentin with bulk-fill flowable composite, roughened dentin with nanohybrid composite, and roughened dentin with bulk-fill flowable composite. A universal bonding agent (Tetric N Bond Universal) was applied in self-etch mode for all groups. The restorations were subsequently evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 months in accordance with the criteria set by the FDI World Dental Federation. Inferential statistics were computed using the Friedman test, with the level of statistical significance established at 0.05.

Results

The 4 groups exhibited no significant differences in relation to fracture and retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, or the recurrence of caries at any follow-up point.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of the present study, over an 18-month follow-up period, no significant difference was present in the clinical performance of bulk-fill flowable and nanohybrid composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions. This held true regardless of whether dentin roughening was performed.

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.

Surface Analysis of a Universal Resin Composite and Effect of Preheating on its Physicochemical Properties

This study was aimed at analyzing the surface properties of a universal resin composite and evaluating the effect of preheating on its physicochemical properties. Two commercial resin composites were used under two conditions: Filtek Universal Restorative (UR); UR preheated (URH); Filtek Supreme (FS) and FS preheated (FSH). The film thickness (FT) test (n = 10) was done using two glass slabs under compression. Flexural strength (FLS) and modulus (FLM) were evaluated using a three-point flexion test (n = 10). Polymerization shrinkage stress (PSS) was evaluated in a universal testing machine (n = 5). Gap width (GW) between composite and mold was measured in internally polished metallic molds (n = 10). The degree of conversion (DC) was evaluated by Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (n = 3). The morphology of the filler particles was checked by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and EDX analysis. Surface gloss (SG) and surface roughness (SR) were evaluated before and after mechanical brushing (n = 10). The outcomes were submitted to 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Lower mean values of FT were observed for the preheated groups when compared to the non-preheated groups. URH and FSH showed higher mean values of FLS and FLM when compared with UR and FS. No differences were observed between groups in the PSS test. The GW was higher for the UR and FS groups when compared with URH and FSH. The DC was higher for preheated resin composites when compared to the non-preheated groups. The SR of the UR composite was higher than the FS after mechanical brushing, while the SG was higher for the FS groups. In conclusion, the universal resin composite tested generally presented similar physicochemical properties compared with the nanofilled resin composite and either similar or slightly inferior surface properties. The preheating improved or maintained all properties evaluated.

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

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this double-blind, randomized trial was to evaluate the influence of the occlusogingival distance (OGD) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill resin composite and a regular nanofilled resin composite.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty NCCLs in 77 participants were randomly 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]), namely: 1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, 3 mm-B, and 3 mm-C. The restorations were bonded using a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond), applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were polished 1 week after placement. Two experienced and calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline (7 days) and after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months. Statistical analyses were carried out using Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman's repeated measures analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

After 30 months, the recall rate was 94.2%. Eight restorations were lost (3 for 1.5 mm-C, 2 for 1.5 mm-B, 1 for 3 mm-C, and 2 for 3 mm-B). All groups resulted in a significantly worse marginal discoloration and surface texture at 30 months in comparison with the baseline (1 week). No significant difference was found for the other parameters.

CONCLUSION

The restorations performed with both resin composites produced clinically acceptable restorations. The OGD of NCCLs did not influence the clinical performance of restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The OGD of NCCLs did not have a significant effect on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill and nanofilled restorations. Both materials showed a very good performance on 30-month evaluation.

Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, prospective, and split-mouth study aimed to evaluate flowable bulk-fill resin composites in class II restorations, comparing it with a conventional layering technique after 4-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-three subjects received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional microhybrid composite resin (PA - Peak Universal + Amelogen Plus, Ultradent); flowable bulk-fill and nanoparticulate composite resins (ABF - Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Bulk Fill Flow + Filtek Z350XT, 3M/Espe); and flowable bulk-fill and microhybrid composite resins, (XST - XP Bond + SDR + TPH3, Dentsply). The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier, equality test of two proportions, Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Logistic regression analysis tests (alpha = 0.05).

RESULTS

In total, 106 restorations were evaluated at 4 years. Both systems with bulk-fill composites presented higher marginal discoloration than PA. About surface texture, ABF restorative system showed superior bravo scores being statistically similar to XST. Better performance for wear and surface staining was found for XST restorative system. All restorative systems resulted in the decreased interproximal contacts, occurring early for XST.

CONCLUSIONS

The restorative systems that used flowable bulk-fill resin composites showed satisfactory clinical performance compared with conventional resin composite after 4 years. All restorative systems had decreased proximal contact after 4 years.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Initial marginal discoloration was observed in more than 50% of class II restorations performed with restorative systems that used flowable bulk-fill resin composite. All restorative systems had decreased proximal contact strength over time.

Three-year Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial of Class II Restorations Using Flowable Bulk-fill Resin Composites

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.

Clinical Effectiveness of Bulk-Fill and Conventional Resin Composite Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin in composite restorations. A bibliographic search was carried out until May 2020, in the biomedical databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and Web of Science. The study selection criteria were: randomized clinical trials, in English, with no time limit, with a follow-up greater than or equal to 6 months and that reported the clinical effects (absence of fractures, absence of discoloration or marginal staining, adequate adaptation marginal, absence of post-operative sensitivity, absence of secondary caries, adequate color stability and translucency, proper surface texture, proper anatomical form, adequate tooth integrity without wear, adequate restoration integrity, proper occlusion, absence of inflammation and adequate point of contact) of restorations made with conventional and bulk resins. The risk of bias of the study was analyzed using the Cochrane Manual of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Sixteen articles were eligible and included in the study. The results indicated that there is no difference between restorations with conventional and bulk resins for the type of restoration, type of tooth restored and restoration technique used. However, further properly designed clinical studies are required in order to reach a better conclusion.