36-Month Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluation of Preheated and Room Temperature Resin Composite

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effect of preheating resin composites (RCs) on the clinical performance of class I restorations during a 36-month period using a split-mouth, double-blinded randomized design.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 35 patients were selected. Every patient received one pair of class I nanofilled resin composite (RC, Filtek Z350 XT) posterior restorations (n=70). One side of the mouth received preheated composites; on the other side, the composite was placed in a nonheated state following the manufacturer's instructions. These restorations were evaluated at 1-week (baseline), 12-months, 24-months, and 36-months using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria. The statistical analyses were also performed using the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests with the level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

After 36 months, 33 patients attended the recall visits, and 66 restorations were evaluated. The Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed insignificant differences between both groups (p>0.05) for all FDI parameters. However, a significant difference was detected for staining as a criterion at 36 months (p=0.01). Moreover, a significant difference in the staining was detected when the baseline and 36 months were compared in the nonheated RC group (p=0.001). For esthetic, functional, and biological properties, the nonheated composite exhibited 93.9%, 100%, and 100% of the clinically accepted scores, respectively, and the preheated group presented 100% for all properties. Four restorations had postoperative sensitivity at baseline for nonheated (11.4%) and five for preheated (14.2%), but the postoperative sensitivity scores were considered highly acceptable at 12-, 24-, and 36-months.

CONCLUSIONS

After 36 months, preheated nanofilled RCs showed an acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the nonheated ones in class I restorations, but with better resistance to marginal staining.

Indirect Resin Composite Inlays Cemented with a Self-adhesive, Self-etch or a Conventional Resin Cement Luting Agent: A 5 Years Prospective Clinical Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the 5-years clinical performance of indirect resin composite inlays luted with three different resin cement strategies in MOD Class II restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted following CONSORT guidelines. Forty patients with three large cavities indicated for indirect MOD Class II restorations were enrolled in the current study. Then, 120 indirect resin composite inlay restorations (SR Nexco) were placed and luted with three different resin cement strategies (n=40); an etch-and-rinse (Variolink N), self-etch (Panavia F2.0) and self-adhesive (RelyX Unicem). These restorations were evaluated to the periods of 1 week (baseline), 1, 3 and 5 years using modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed with Wilcoxon and Friedman tests with level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The outcome of the clinical trial showed that, there was neither loss of restorations nor recurrent caries after 5 years for all luting cements groups. Both self-etch Panavia F2.0 and self-adhesive RelyX Unicem resin cements exhibited significant differences between the evaluation periods regarding to marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation (p=0.03). At baseline, only 8 cases of etch-and-rinse (Variolink N) resin cement group exhibited post-operative sensitivity which were relieved after short time (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

All the three resin cement strategies tested, showed acceptable clinical performance after 5-years recall period. In time, etch-and-rinse resin cement group showed better clinical performance regarding marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation at 5-years recall period. Clinical Relevance statement:In vitro and in vivo studies reveal contradictory evidence of the clinical performance of indirect resin composite inlays luted with different resin cement strategies. Thus, this study revealed that etch-and-rinse resin cement still has the best prognosis for adhesive luting of indirect resin composite inlays.

The effect of preheating resin composites on surface hardness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of preheating on the hardness of nanofilled, nanoceramic, nanohybrid, and microhybrid resin composites.

Materials and Methods

An electronic search of papers on MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost was performed. Only in vitro studies were included. Non-English studies, case reports, clinical trials, and review articles were excluded. A meta-analysis of the reviewed studies was conducted to quantify differences in the microhardness of the Z250 microhybrid resin composite using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

Results

Only 13 studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences between the non-preheated and preheated modes for both the top and bottom surfaces of the specimens (p < 0.05). The microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the top surface in the preheated mode (78.1 ± 2.9) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (67.4 ± 4.0; p < 0.001). Moreover, the microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the bottom surface in the preheated mode (71.8 ± 3.8) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (57.5 ± 5.7, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Although the results reported in the reviewed studies showed great variability, sufficient scientific evidence was found to support the hypothesis that preheating can improve the hardness of resin composites.

Do universal adhesives promote bonding to dentin? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review of the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of multi-mode adhesives to dentin and to perform a meta-analysis to assess the significance of differences in the µTBS of one of the most commonly used universal adhesives (Scotchbond Universal, 3M ESPE) depending on whether the etch-and-rinse or self-etch mode was used.

Materials and Methods

An electronic search was performed of MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost. Laboratory studies that evaluated the µTBS of multi-mode adhesives to dentin using either the etch-and-rinse or self-etch mode were selected. A meta-analysis was conducted of the reviewed studies to quantify the differences in the µTBS of Scotchbond Universal adhesive.

Results

Only 10 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Extensive variation was found in the restorative materials, testing methodologies, and failure mode in the reviewed articles. Furthermore, variation was also observed in the dimensions of the microtensile testing beams. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the etch-and-rinse and self-etch modes for Scotchbond Universal adhesive (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Multi-mode ‘universal’ adhesives can achieve substantial bonding to dentin, regardless of the used modes (either etch-and-rinse or self-etch).