A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities

Could bulk fill glass hybrid restorative materials replace composite resins in treating permanent teeth? A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of Equia system bulk fill glass hybrid material with composite resins in the permanent restoration of pediatric patients' permanent teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 44 pediatric patients aged 8-16 who applied to Necmettin Erbakan University Pediatric Dentistry Department. The groups were formed as symmetrical teeth in the same patient using the split-mouth design. The study included class I caries lesions of 144 permanent teeth. Group 1 was restored with the Equia system bulk fill glass hybrid material (Equia Forte HT + Equia Forte Coat [GC, Co, Tokyo, Japan]) (n = 72) and Group 2 with the Charisma Smart universal composite resin (Kulzer, Gmbh, Hanau, Germany) + Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Noritake, Sakazu, Okayama) (n = 72). Evaluations were performed clinically and radiographically by two physicians in 2nd week, 3rd month, 6th month, and 12th month and the results were recorded. Clinical evaluation was carried out using modified-USPHS criteria. Obtained data were statistically analyzed using Kendall's W test and Cochran's Q test for the comparison within the group, and the Chi-square test for the comparison between groups.

RESULTS

Among the materials utilized in the study, there was no statistically significant difference in marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, retention, anatomical form, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries according (p > 0.05). Group 2 outperformed statistically significant Group 1 in terms of color match in all periods (p < 0.05). While there was no statistically significant difference in surface structure between the groups in 2nd week and 3rd month (p > 0.05), there was a statistically substantial difference in 6th, and 12th months (p < 0.05). No secondary caries or periapical lesions were found in any restorations during radiographic evaluation.

CONCLUSION

After a year, the clinical performance of both Equia and composite resins was equivalent and successful in the majority of the measures against which they were evaluated.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the results of the research, Equia system bulk fill glass hybrid restorations are considered a viable alternative to composite resins in class I permanent teeth restorations.

Clinical evaluation of posterior restorations over wet and dry dentin using an etch-and-rinse adhesive: A 36-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical performance of posterior restorations over wet and dry dentin with an etch-and-rinse adhesive after 36 months of clinical service.

METHODS

Forty-five participants were recruited, each one had at least two posterior teeth that needed restoration. Ninety restorations were placed on Class I or Class II cavities. For the restoration protocol, a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2) was applied over wet (WD) or dry dentin (DD) and later restored with a bulk-fill composite (Filtek Bulk Fill) under rubber dam isolation. Each restoration was evaluated using the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria after 6, 12, and 36 months of clinical service, regarding the following principal restoration characteristics: postoperative sensitivity, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, fracture of material and retention, and recurrence of caries. Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05) and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 36 months of clinical evaluation, no significant difference between groups was observed in each FDI criterion (p > 0.05). Twenty restorations (WD=10, DD=10) showed minor marginal staining, and twenty-two restorations (WD=11, DD=11) presented small marginal adaptation defects (p > 0.05). Four restorations were lost (WD = 2, DD = 2) and the fracture rates (95% confidence interval) were 94.9% for each one, without significant difference between wet and dry dentin (p > 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

The degree of dentin moisture does not seem to affect the clinical performance of a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive in posterior restorations when the adhesive is applied vigorously over the dentine surface.

Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative system and a nano-hybrid resin composite in moderate to large two-surface class II cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out by dental schools in Zagreb, Croatia; Izmir, Turkey; Belgrade, Serbia; and Milan, Italy. A total of 180 patients requiring two class-II two-surface restorations in the molars of the same jaw were recruited. The teeth were randomly restored with either a nano-hybrid resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent) or a glass-hybrid material (EQUIA Forte, GC). During the 5-year follow-up, two calibrated evaluators at each centre scored the restorations annually using the FDI-2 scoring system. The survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using non-parametric matched pair tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the overall survival and success rates of the two types of restorations (p>0.05). The success rates (FDI-2 scores 1-3) for EQUIA Forte were 81.9% (average annual failure rate: 3.9%) and 90.7% for Tetric EvoCeram (average annual failure rate: 1.9%). The survival rates (FDI-2 scores 1-4) for EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram were 94.5% and 94.4%, respectively, with an average annual failure rate of 1.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of success and survival rates, both the glass-hybrid restorative system and the nano-hybrid resin composite have been shown to perform satisfactorily.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results of this study indicate that EQUIA Forte can be one of the therapeutic options for moderate to large two-surface class II restorations of posterior teeth.

The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations.

METHODS

Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed.

RESULTS

This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41-0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11-0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77-1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39-1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67-1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34-7.84].

CONCLUSIONS

GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959].

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement or composite resin for restorations in posterior permanent teeth? A systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

Answer the PICO question: Do class I and II posterior restorations in permanent teeth placed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HV-GIC) fail more than composite resin (CR) restorations?

DATA

The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020138290). Randomized and controlled clinical trials, comparing the performance of HV-GIC and CR in load bearing cavities of posterior permanent teeth were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE were used to assess the quality and certainty of the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed for clinical outcomes on USPHS and FDI criteria for 12-, 24- and 36-months follow-ups.

SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were last searched on April 2, 2022, without language or date restrictions. Reference lists of primary studies and their related article link in PubMed were manually searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Ten studies were included, while data from 8 were used for the meta-analyses. A total of 849 HV-GIC and 800 CR restorations were followed. The primary outcome was the fracture/retention of the restoration, with a comparable performance for both materials on all follow-ups. The 36 months follow-up for class I restorations (longest) showed risk difference of -0,00 (95%CI -0,03 to 0,03; p = 0,98) and no heterogeneity (p = 0,98, I2=0%). The certainty of the evidence is moderate, as all included studies were at an uncertain risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

HV-GIC and CR presented comparable clinical performance in posterior permanent teeth up to 36 months. HV-GIV wear in class I restorations followed by 24 months was the only poorer result compared to CR.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Conservative load bearing cavities in permanent posterior teeth can be restored with HV-GIC with comparable clinical performance to CR expected at least up to 3 years. HV-GIC is a valuable direct restorative option for posterior teeth in high caries risk patients, in which CR is frequently associated with failure.

The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the scientific evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill versus incrementally layered conventional resin composites and to evaluate if one method offers clear merits with specific clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using relevant mesh terms and pre-established eligibility criteria in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, a thorough scientific search was conducted with an end-date of 30.04.2023. Randomized controlled clinical trials that involved the direct comparison of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations applied using incremental layering techniques versus bulk-filled in permanent teeth with an observation period of at least six months were considered. To evaluate the bias risk of the finalized records, a revised version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was implemented.

RESULTS

Out of the 1445 records determined, 18 eligible reports were chosen for qualitative analysis. Data obtained was categorized as per, the cavity design, the intervention, the comparator(s), the methods of success/failure assessment, the outcomes, and follow-up. Two studies demonstrated an overall low-risk of bias, fourteen studies raised some concerns, and two studies exhibited high-risk.

CONCLUSION

Bulk filled resin composite restorations demonstrated clinical outcomes similar to those of incrementally layered resin composite restorations within a review interval of 6 months to 10 years.

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness.

METHODS

A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.

Fluoride and Calcium Release from Alkasite and Glass Ionomer Restorative Dental Materials: In Vitro Study

This study evaluated the effect of pH and temperature on the ion (F^- and Ca²⁺) release of a resin-based material containing alkaline fillers and a self-setting high-viscous glass ionomer cement. Disks were prepared according to manufacturers' instructions for both materials: the EF group (Equia Forte HT filling, GC) and the CN group (Cention N, Ivoclar). Specimens were immersed in 50 mL buffer solution with three different pHs (4.8, 6.8, and 8.8), and stored at 0°, 18°, 37°, and 44 °C. After 24 h, 7 d, and 28 d, cumulative F^- and Ca²⁺ releases were analyzed by chromatography and mass spectrometry, and pH was measured. Both materials showed minimal changes in pH with final values after 28 d of 5.17 ± 0.56 for CN and 5.12 ± 0.24 for EF. In all experimental conditions, the percentages of ion release were higher for EF than for CF. In particular, both materials showed a significant difference in temperature in F^- release. Regardless of the pH values, the highest Ca²⁺ ion release was after 28 days, with a significant difference in temperature for CN and EF. Within the limit of this study, the temperature storage influenced ion release and the high-viscous glass ionomer showed the maximum values.

The influence of different placement techniques on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin composites placed in Class II cavities: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this double-blind and split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical success of the placement technique (bulk-filling and incremental techniques) of a bulk-fill resin composite in Class II carious lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two different bulk-fill resin composites, X-tra fil (Voco) and Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE), were used in the bulk-filling and incremental techniques for 20 patients. The study was carried out in 4 groups, with 20 restorations in each group. Restorations were appraised at baseline, 6-month, 2-year, and 4-year recall. World Dental Federation (FDI) and the US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were used in the evaluations. The Friedman, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

At the end of year 4, there was no loss of restoration in any group. According to the USPHS and FDI criteria, there was a difference in the baseline and 4-year in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration of the restorations (P < 0.05). When Filtek-Bulk was placed as an incremental technique, there was a minor fracture in four restorations (P > 0.05). In addition, Filtek-Bulk showed a color change according to the results based on both the USPHS and FDI criteria (P < 0.05). The difference between the two placement techniques of each resin composite was not significant at the year 4 recall when all criteria were evaluated (P ˃ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The 4-year clinical success of the evaluated bulk-fill composites is not dependent on the placement technique used.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study can help clinicians choose which technique (bulk fill and incremental techniques) bulk-fill composites can be used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

US National Library of Medicine, www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , ID: NCT04565860 Registered on 10/09/2020. Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill resin Composites in Class II Restorations.

Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs

BACKGROUND

The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.

TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.

Can composite packaging and selective enamel etching affect the clinical behavior of bulk-fill composite resin in posterior restorations? 24-month results of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This is a double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical study that aims to evaluate the influence of bulk-fill composite packaging presented in syringes (BSy) and capsules (BCa), and the effect of selective enamel etching (SEE) on the clinical performance of class I and II bulk-fill resin composite restorations after 24 months.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 295 class I or class II restorations were performed on 70 patients. One universal adhesive was applied in all restorations. SEE was used in 148 restorations and self-etching mode (SET) in 147 restorations. After the adhesive application, cavities were restored with Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior Restorative in syringes (BSy), Filtek One Bulk-fill in capsules (BCa), or Filtek Supreme Ultra in syringes with the incremental technique (In). All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after one week and after six, 12, and 24 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Pearson's Chi-square test were used (α=0.05) for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 24 months, 62 patients were evaluated and four restorations were lost due to fracture (one for SEEBSy, two for SEEIn, and one for SETIn). No significant differences in the fracture and retention rate were found between groups (p>0.05). SEE showed significantly fewer marginal adaptation defects than SET (p<0.05). BCa and BSy groups showed fewer marginal discrepancies compared to In (p<0.05). Restorations performed with BCa showed less color mismatch than BSy or In (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although all restorations exhibited satisfactory clinical performance after 24 months of clinical service, the clinical behavior of class I and II restorations' improved when performed with a bulk-fill composite in capsules, mainly when associated with a universal adhesive applied with SEE.

Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

This systematic review was aimed to evaluate occurrence of secondary caries and marginal adaptation in ion-releasing materials versus resin composite. Electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Open Grey databases with no date or language restrictions until May 21st, 2021, was conducted. Randomized clinical trials that compared ion-releasing restorations versus resin composite were included. For quantitative analysis, a random-effects meta-analysis with risk difference as an effect measure and a 95% confidence interval was used. Quality of evidence was assessed using The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochran Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. The inclusion criteria were met by 22 studies, and 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three follow-up periods (1 year, 18 months-2 years, and 3 years) were evaluated. The overall quality of evidence for secondary caries and marginal adaptation outcomes was low. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in both outcomes between ion-releasing materials and resin composite. The occurrence of secondary caries was not dependent on the nature of the restorative material. It is more likely a complex process that involves the same risk factors as primary carious lesions.

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.

Microleakage of Direct Restorations-Comparisonbetween Bulk-Fill and Traditional Composite Resins:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Since the bulk-fill composites were produced, there was a progressive diffusion of their use for direct conservative treatment in posterior teeth. Their chemical structure increases the depth of cure and decreases the polymerization contraction; in this manner, bulk-fill composites can be placed in 4 mm single layers and the treatment times are considerably reduced. However, aesthetic and mechanical properties and impact on microleakage of bulk-fill resins are still unclear.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk of microleakage of direct posterior restorations made of bulk-fill versus conventional composite resins.

Researches were performed on PubMed and Scopus databases. Eligible in vivo studies, published since 2006, were reviewed. Outcomes of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and recurrent caries were considered to conduct the systematic review and meta-analysis. Secondary data were examined to implement additional analysis and assess the risk of bias.

Eight randomized clinical trials were analyzed, involving 778 direct restorations. The summary of RCTs led to significant but inconsistent results; the marginal discoloration and recurrent caries were found to be improved respectively by 5.1 and 1.4%, whereas the marginal adaptation was reduced of 6.5%. Secondary analyses revealed that follow-up periods, the adhesive system used and the class of carious lesions evaluated are confounding factors, and they result in a risk of bias across studies.

Bulk-fill composites are innovative materials for conservative dentistry and they can be used to reduce treatment steps and duration of operative times. There are insufficient data to explore the relationship between bulk-fill composites and microleakage and further investigations are needed.

A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives

Aim

To compare the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with a universal adhesive, one-step and two-step self-etch adhesives in class I and II posterior cavities.

Materials and methods

In this in vivo study, 46 volunteers presenting with at least three carious lesions were included. Each participant received the three restorative systems: universal adhesive/nanofilled composite (Scotchbond Universal/Filtek Z350 XT: SBU/FZXT), one-step self-etch adhesive/microhybrid composite (G-aenial bond/G-aenial Posterior: GB/GP) and the two-step self-etch adhesive/nanohybrid composite (OptiBond XTR/Herculite Ultra: OBX/HU). The adhesives were all placed in self-etch mode. In total, 138 restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6,12 and 36 months using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, Friedman and Wilcoxon non-parametric tests (p < .05). Ninety-one restorations were evaluated at 36 months.

Results

Seven restorations, three SBU/FZXT, three GB/GP and one OBX/HU failed during this study. The reasons for failure were marginal fracture and secondary caries. SBU/FZXT restorations showed significant marginal deterioration in all parameters. Overall success rates were: 93.5% (SBU/FZXT), 96.6% (GB/GP) and 96.8% (OBX/HU).

Conclusions

After three years, the three restorative systems have comparable clinical effectiveness and success rates, except for the marginal integrity, that was suboptimal for both the SBU/FZXT and GB/GP restorations in comparison to the OBX/HU restorations.

Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare the performance of a bulk-fill and a nanofill resin composite in class II restorations after 6 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients having at least two class II carious lesions were recruited for the study. One lesion in each patient was randomly assigned to be restored using either the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TB) or Filtek Ultimate (FU) resin composites with their respective adhesives. One hundred four restorations were placed by two calibrated operators. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually over the course of 6 years by two examiners using modified USPHS criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square and Cochran Q tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Sixty-six restorations in 33 patients were evaluated after 6 years. Only one restoration was lost from FU group at 5 years. At the end of 6 years, marginal discoloration was observed in three (9.1%) TB and eight (36.4%) FU restorations creating a significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05). The FU group showed a significant increase in marginal discoloration at 6 years from the baseline (p < 0.05). Marginal adaptation was rated as Bravo for 9.1% and 24.2% of TB and FU restorations, respectively (p > 0.05). Significant degradation was observed within each group in terms of marginal adaptation (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the other criteria tested (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Bulk-fill restorations performed better for marginal discoloration. The remaining clinical performance criteria of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations were similar after 6 years.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Bulk-fill resin might be a better alternative to incrementally placed restorative in terms of marginal discoloration under clinical conditions.

In vitro wear of (resin-coated) high-viscosity glass ionomer cements and glass hybrid restorative systems

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the volumetric abrasive wear of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (hvGIC; Equia Fil) and a glass hybrid restorative system (ghRS; Equia Forte), each being recommended as amalgam alternatives. Both materials were applied with or without their respective resinous coating, and were compared with a conventional GIC (Ketac Fil) and a hybrid composite resin (CR; G-ænial Posterior).

METHODS

78 standardized occlusal Class I cavities were restored with the various materials (n = 13 per group). Before and after chewing simulation (30,000 cycles at 40 N), each sample underwent optical scanning procedures (Omnicam). A comparison of the total wear using a fluorescence-aided identification technique (OraCheck) followed, and differences (α = 5%) between groups were compared by means of MANOVA.

RESULTS

Regarding the wear rates of hvGIC and ghRS, no differences could be observed (p > .050), and this was not affected by the resinous coating. All hvGIC and ghRS restorations showed significantly higher abrasive wear than CR (p < .001), while the conventional GIC displayed a significant underperformance compared with any other material (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Resinous coating of hvGIC or ghRS does not appear to exert an effective long-term protection against advanced abrasive wear. Compared to the conventional GIC showing a considerable substance loss, both hvGIC and ghRS materials revealed an improved abrasion resistance, but clearly failed to meet the excellent values of the CR.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Occlusal loading should be carefully considered when using hvGIC or ghRS as amalgam (or composite resin) alternatives for the restoration of posterior teeth.

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.

Flexural strength and surface microhardness of materials used for temporary dental disocclusion submitted to thermal cycling: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of temperature variation on surface microhardness and resistance to flexion of different materials used for making a temporary dental disocclusion.

METHODS

One hundred specimens were made of the following materials (n=20): glass ionomer cement (GIC); compomer (CP); composite resin (CR); Blue colour resin composite for temporary dental disocclusion (BTDD); ultraviolet colour resin composite for temporary dental disocclusion (UVTDD). They were stored in distilled water for 24hours and, subsequently, half of the specimens in each group were subjected to thermal cycling (n=10). All samples were subjected to the microhardness test (HMV-2000) and the flexural strength analysis (INSTRON). The data were submitted to parametric statistical analysis (ANOVA) and Tukey's complementary test with a significance level of 5%. In the mechanical tests, all materials except the GIC showed a statistically significant difference between the groups subjected to thermal cycling and not submitted, and thermal cycling (P<0.05) was responsible for the reduction of the values found, except for GIC.

RESULTS

In the mechanical tests, all materials except the GIC showed a statistically significant difference between the groups subjected to thermal cycling and not submitted, and thermal cycling (P<0.05) was responsible for the reduction of the values found, except for GIC. For microhardness, the highest average was found for BTDD and UVTDD (P≤0.05). As for the resistance, the flexion was found that in the groups not submitted to thermal cycling there was no statistically significant difference for all materials, except for GIC, for the groups with thermal cycling the materials BTDD and UVTDD showed a statistically significant difference from GIC, however, they did not differ statistically from the CP and CR groups.

CONCLUSION

BTDD and UVTDD presented higher average results of surface microhardness and, in the resistance test, the flexion of these materials behaved similarly to the CP and the CR studied. The temperature variation has an effect on the properties of these materials.