Placement of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Dental Practitioners in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia

Dental practitioner-related factors can affect the quality of composite restorations. This study aimed to investigate the clinical techniques used by dental practitioners (DPs) while placing direct posterior composite restorations. Methods: A questionnaire survey that sought information related to the placement of posterior composite restorations was delivered to 161 DPs working in the Al-Kharj area, Saudi Arabia. The collected data were statistically analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test considering the DP’s working sector and the answered questions. Results: A total of 123 DPs completed the survey (76.4% response rate). There was a statistically significant difference between DPs working in the private sector and those working in the governmental sector in 7 out of 17 questionnaire items namely: preparing a minimum depth of 2 mm, (p = 0.001); mechanical means of retention, (p = 0.003); operative field isolation, (p = 0.004); adhesive strategy, (p < 0.001); light-curing unit used, (p = 0.013); the use of radiometer, (p = 0.023), and dental matrix selection, (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The clinical techniques applied by DPs working in the private sector in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia when placing posterior composite restorations, including the specifications of cavity preparation, operative field isolation, and selection of the dental matrix system, may be substandard compared to those applied by DPs working in the governmental sector.

Physical and mechanical characteristics of short fiber-reinforced resin composite in comparison with bulk-fill composites

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of a short fiber-reinforced resin composite: everX-Posterior and compare it with two bulk-fill composites, namely, Filtek Bulk-fill and Beautifil-Bulk, which are intended for large posterior restorations.

METHODS

Investigated properties were flexural strength, flexural modulus, surface roughness, volumetric shrinkage and depth of cure. Scanning electron microscopy images of each specimen after the flexural test were used for cross-sectional comparison. Results were analyzed using ANOVA following Tukey post-hoc test.

RESULTS

Flexural strength of everX-Posterior was comparable with two other resin composites, showing higher flexural modulus. EverX-Posterior showed the highest surface roughness after polishing and the lowest volumetric shrinkage (2.29%) among all composites used in this study. Data also showed that the everX-Posterior depth of cure was 4.24 mm, which was the highest among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this study, it was concluded that everX-Posterior as a short fiber-reinforced composite showed improvements and satisfactory performance in mechanical and physical properties, which make it a reliable base material candidate for large posterior restorations.

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.

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

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 3^rd 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 3^rd 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.

Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: a 3-year study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanohybrid and a microhybrid composite in class I and II restorations after 3 years.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 82 class I and class II restorations were performed in 31 patients (10 males and 21 females) using Grandio and QuiXfil with self-etch adhesives (Futurabond and Xeno III). The restorations were clinically evaluated by 2 operators 1 week after placement (baseline) and at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the 3-year follow-up, 62 class I and class II cavities were reevaluated in 23 patients (7 males and 16 females). Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's χ(2) and Fisher's exact tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

At the 6-month follow-up, all restorations received Alfa scores with respect to each evaluation criterion. At the 1-year follow-up, 2 QuiXfil restorations had to be replaced and Grandio restorations started to deteriorate in terms of marginal adaptation. At the end of 2 years, 9 Grandio restorations showed significant deterioration of the surface properties, demonstrating Bravo scores. At the end of 3 years, no significant differences were observed regarding color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, marginal discoloration, and anatomic form loss between the evaluated materials in 25 class I and 37 class II restorations. At the 3-year follow-up, Grandio restorations had 21% Bravo scores and showed significant deterioration of the surface properties, which were still clinically acceptable according to USPHS criteria. Three QuiXfil and 1 Grandio restorations were replaced because of secondary caries and loss of retention.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the nanohybrid (Grandio) and the microhybrid (QuiXfil) composites were clinically functional after 3 years.