Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities

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 evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this RCT was to compare the 10-year clinical performance of QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single- or multi-surface cavities.

METHODS

46 QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in 14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 stress bearing class I and 45 class II cavities, were assessed.

RESULTS

Ten failed restorations were observed during the follow-up period, four Tetric Ceram restorations failed due to secondary caries (2), tooth fracture (1) and bulk fracture combined with secondary caries (1) whereas six QuiXfil restorations failed due to secondary caries (1), tooth fracture (2), secondary caries combined with restoration fracture (1), restoration fracture (1) and postoperative sensitivity (1). Fisher's exact test yielded no significant difference between both materials (p=0.487).

SIGNIFICANCE

Both materials, bulk fill QuiXfil restorations and Tetric Ceram restorations, showed highly clinical effectiveness during the 10-year follow-up.

Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composites with conventional resin composites used for direct restorations of posterior teeth.

METHODS

This review followed the PRISMA statement. This review was registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016053436). A search of the scientific literature was performed by two independent reviewers using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from commencement until January 2018. The research question was "Do bulk-fill resin composites have a clinical performance comparable to conventional resin composites in posterior restorations?" Only studies evaluating class I and II direct restorations in permanent teeth with a follow-up period of at least 1 year were included. The RevMan 5 program was used for meta-analysis, calculating the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the dichotomous outcome (restoration failure or success).

RESULTS

Ten articles were selected, comprising 941 analyzed restorations. The mean follow-up period was 33.6 months (12-72 months). No statistically significant differences in the failure rate were observed between conventional and base/flowable bulk-fill resin composites (p = 0.31; RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.69-3.25) or full-body/sculptable bulk-fill resin composites (p = 0.12; RR 1.89; 95% CI 0.84-4.24).

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis indicate similar clinical performances of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites over a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the results of this study, the bulk-fill resin composites could be an alternative for direct restorations in posterior teeth. However, clinical trials of longer duration are required.

In Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Direct Class II Composite Restorations Made of Different “Low-Shrinkage” Systems

The present study evaluated the influence of various low-shrinkage restorative systems in class II direct composite restorations following simulated occlusal loading. Forty MOD class II cavities were prepared on freshly extracted human lower third molars with proximal margins located mesially 1.0 mm coronal to and distally 1 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction. The samples were randomly distributed into five experimental groups corresponding to the following restorative systems: a conventional resin composite (Tetric) as active control group, a low-shrinkage composite (Extra Low Shrinkage [ELS]) alone or combined with its corresponding flowable version (ELSflow) used as a 1- to 1.5-mm liner, a bulk-filling flowable composite (Surefil SDR) covered by a 1-mm layer of restorative composite (Ceram-X), and a restorative bulk-filling composite (SonicFill). All specimens were submitted to 1,000,000 cycles with a 100N eccentric load into saline. Tooth restoration margins were analyzed semiquantitatively by scanning electron microscopy before and after loading. The percentage of perfect adaptation to enamel varied from 94.15% (SonicFill) to 100% (ELS) before loading and from 69.22% (SonicFill) to 93.61% (ELS and ELSflow) after loading. Continuous adaptation to cervical dentin varied from 22.9% (Tetric) to 79.48% (SDR/Ceram-X) before loading and from 18.66% (Tetric) to 56.84% (SDR/Ceram-X) after loading. SDR/CeramX and SonicFill showed the best cervical dentin adaptation.

Influence of Adhesive Type and Placement Technique on Postoperative Sensitivity in Posterior Composite Restorations

PURPOSE

This double blind, randomized clinical trial compared the postoperative sensitivity of the placement technique (incremental and bulk fill) in posterior composite resin restorations bonded with two different adhesive strategies (self-etch and etch-and-rinse).

METHODS

Posterior dental cavities of 72 participants (n=236), with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm, were randomly divided into four groups. The restorations were bonded using either the etch-and-rinse Tetric N-Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent) or the self-etch Tetric N-Bond SE (Ivoclar Vivadent). The composite resin Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent) was placed either incrementally or using the bulk-fill technique. Two experienced and calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations using World Dental Federation criteria after one week of clinical service. Spontaneous postoperative sensitivity was assessed using a 0-4 numerical rating scale and a 0-10 and 0-100 visual analog scale up to 48 h after the restorative procedure and after one week.

RESULTS

The risk (p>0.49) and intensity of spontaneous postoperative sensitivity (p>0.38) was not affected by the adhesive strategy or the filling technique. The overall risk of postoperative sensitivity was 20.3% (95% confidence interval 15.7-25.9) and typically occurred within 48 hours after the restorative procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of immediate postoperative sensitivity was 20.3% and was not affected by either the adhesive strategy (etch-and-rinse/self-etch) or the filling technique (incremental/ bulk).

Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the differences in clinical performance in direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth.

SOURCES

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, BBO, ClinicalTrials.gov and SiGLE were searched without restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in Class I and Class II cavities in permanent teeth, with at least two years of follow-up. The risk of bias tool suggested by Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment.

DATA

After duplicate removal, 912 studies were identified. Twenty fulfilled the inclusion criteria after the abstract screening. Two articles were added after a hand search of the reference list of included studies. After examination, nine RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and five were considered to have a 'low' risk of bias. The overall risk difference in longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth (p>0.05) at five-year follow-up was 1.494 [0.893-2.500], and regardless of the type of tooth restored, that of molar and premolars was 0.716 [0.177-2.888] at three-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings, there was no difference in longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations regardless of the type of material and the restored tooth.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Contemporary dentistry is based on minimally invasive restorations. Any indication of a less conservative technique must have unquestionable advantages. In vitro and in vivo studies reveal contradictory evidence of the clinical performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Thus this study clarified this doubt.

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.

Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Composites in Posterior Restorations: Two-year Results

Nanohybrid and low-shrinkage posterior resin composites, placed with self-etch adhesive systems in posterior teeth, showed satisfactory and similar results after two years.