Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation

Deep margin elevation in restorative dentistry: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Deep margin elevation (DME) is a restorative approach offering the possibility of performing stepwise elevation of deep proximal cavities to create more favourable margins for direct or indirect restorations. The objectives of this scoping review were to explore what is known or unknown about DME by describing a wide ranging evidence base including peer reviewed literature and non-traditionally published information on the web.

DATA

Data were extracted from the included evidence in order to describe the following: the extent and nature of the evidence base; the situations which are appropriate for DME; the materials and techniques which are used; the outcomes which have been measured in empirical studies; the risks which have been reported; and the findings which have been reported in studies which compared DME to surgical crown lengthening.

SOURCES

This scoping review included a wide range of published evidence and extensive web searching for grey literature, including CPD, training and multimedia information.

STUDY SELECTION

The findings revealed a range of published literature as well as freely available, online information advising practitioners about DME. Most empirical evidence was based on in vitro studies, and there were few clinical studies comparing DME to crown lengthening. Online information included recent, multimedia sources.

CONCLUSIONS

DME is a technique that can be used with motivated patients with good oral hygiene if rubber dam isolation is achieved, if there is no invasion of the connective tissue space, and if a strict restorative protocol is adhered to.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

With phasing out of amalgam and adhesive dentistry increasing in popularity, DME addresses multiple clinical problems associated with sub-gingival margins prior to restoration.

The optical behavior of nano filled resin composite loaded with graphene oxide nanoparticles

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of the effect of incorporation of graphene oxide nanoparticles (GONPs), different concentrations into resin composite with different thicknesses on its color modulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

GONPs were prepared using the chemical reduction method and characterized using a transmission electron microscope and X-ray diffraction. The minimum concentrations of GONPs that provided the most effective antibacterial action (0.05 wt% and 0.2 wt%.) were prepared to be the concentration added to the tested resin composite. Calculations were done to find the required volume of the GONPs solution needed according to the mass of the resin composite. 70 nano-filled resin composite discs were prepared with 10 mm diameter × 3 mm height. 10 resin composite discs were prepared without GONPs incorporation and served as a control (G0). The other 60 resin composite specimens were divided into 2 equal groups (G1& G2) according to the concentration of the loaded nanoparticles in the specimens. Each group was divided into 3 equal subgroups according to the thickness of the resin composite containing GONPs; [T1: GONPs dispersed in the bottom 1 mm of the disc, while the top 2 mm of the disc was of resin composite only. T2: GONPs dispersed only in the bottom 2 mm of the disc and T3: GONPs dispersed in the total thickness of the disc (3 mm)]. ∆E values were calculated using a Vita Easy shade Spectrophotometer.

RESULTS

Incorporation of GONPs into resin composite induced significant color change and among all the 6 experimental groups, G1T1 group (of 0.05 wt% concentration GONPs dispersed only in the bottom 1 mm of the disc) showed a non-significant color change.

CONCLUSION

Dispersion of GONPs has a detectable effect on the color change of resin composite. Meanwhile, dispersion in low concentration for only the bottom 1 mm thickness of resin composite has an undetectable effect on its color.

Effects of application method on shrinkage vectors and volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class-II restorations

OBJECTIVES

Upon initial proximal wall construction, the favorable C-factor of class-II cavities may become unfavorable. This study investigated the application method on bulk-fill resin composite polymerization shrinkage.

METHODS

Occluso-proximal class-II cavities were prepared in 40 molars and bonded with a self-etch adhesive (Adhese Universal). The study groups varied according to the resin composite application: group-1: bulk application, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TBF); group-2: proximal wall construction (TBF) and occlusal cavity filling (TBF); group-3: thin flowable liner layer, Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill (TEF) and bulk filling (TBF); group-4: flowable liner (TEF), proximal wall (TBF), occlusal cavity (TBF); and group-5: bulk application, SDR (3 mm) and capping layer (TBF, 1 mm). Each resin composite increment was scanned twice using micro-CT (uncured, cured 40 s) at a resolution of 16 µm. Shrinkage vectors and volumetric polymerization shrinkage were evaluated and statistically analyzed (one-way ANOVA). SEM images were used to investigate the tooth-restoration interface.

RESULTS

Shrinkage vectors differed significantly among the groups and were greatest in gp5-fl/SDR (47.6 µm), followed by gp1-TBF (23.8 µm) and least in gp5-fl/SDR+TBF (11.1 µm). Volumetric shrinkage varied significantly with the use of SDR (gp5-fl/SDR: 2.6%) and TEF (gp4-fl/TEF: 2.5%) to TBF (gp4-fl/TEF+wl/TBF: 0.6%) in the incremental application.

SIGNIFICANCE

Building a proximal resin composite wall yielded smaller shrinkage vectors than the bulk application. Applying a thin flowable liner decreased the shrinkage vectors, even more when building a proximal wall. A thin flowable liner is recommended when building a proximal resin composite wall.

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0.

RESULTS

A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.

Use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in class II restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of an intermediate layer of a flowable resin composite in class II resin composite restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website to identify laboratory and clinical studies that evaluated class II cavities with resin composite restorations with or without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and the quality of the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan5.3 with fixed-effects model comparing bond strength (MPa), fracture strength (Newton), and clinical (number of failures) outcomes between restorative techniques (with or without flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer).

RESULTS

From 1707 potentially eligible studies, 140 in vitro studies and 14 clinical studies were selected for full-text analysis, and 11 were included in the systematic review, being 7 in vitro and 4 clinical studies. There was no statistically significant difference between the restorative techniques considering the outcomes evaluated. The heterogeneity found was null. The risk of bias was classified as medium for in vitro studies and unclear in most clinical studies. The quality of the evidence of the clinical studies was low.

CONCLUSION

The use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer does not improve the effectiveness of the class II restorations based on laboratory and clinical outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer may be used for class II restorations; however, this technique does not improve the effectiveness of the class II restorations.

The Effect of Scuba Diving on Microleakage of a Class II Composite Restoration: An In-Vitro Study

Persistent pressure change is a common phenomenon within scuba diving with various medical and dental sign side effects. This study evaluates the effect of simulated pressure change due to scuba diving on the microleakage of class II composite restoration. In our methodology, a total number of 150 intact bicuspids are divided into two main groups (A and B), and prepared for a class II composite restoration. The samples of each main group are divided into five subgroups to be prepared with different liners. Then samples are restored with the same resin composite material. The teeth in group A are thermocycled under the normal atmospheric pressure, while group B are thermocycled under simulated scuba diving conditions. The gingival microleakage is assessed based on dye penetration. The group B teeth show a significantly higher microleakage score than their equivalents in group A (p < 0.05). The subgroups without a liner have a higher microleakage score than the other subgroups (p < 0.05). The flowable composite shows the leased leakage scores followed by Nano ionomer, Resin Modified Glass Iononomer, GIOMER, and linerless groups (p < 0.05). Scuba diving could increase the risk of microleakage development beneath class II, a composite restoration.

Clinical Performance of Filled/Nanofilled Versus Nonfilled Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of filled adhesive systems does not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive restoration in noncarious cervical lesions.

SUMMARY

Effects of flowable liners on the shrinkage vectors of bulk-fill composites

Objectives

This investigation evaluated the effect of flowable liners beneath a composite restoration applied via different methods on the pattern of shrinkage vectors.

Methods

Forty molars were divided into five groups (n = 8), and cylindrical cavities were prepared and bonded with a self-etch adhesive (AdheSe). Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TBF) was used as the filling material in all cavities. The flowable liners Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill (TEF) and SDR were used to line the cavity floor. In gp1-TBF, the flowable composite was not used. TEF was applied in a thin layer in gp2-fl/TEF + TBF and gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental. Two flowable composites with a layer thickness of 2 mm were compared in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF and gp5-fl/SDR + TBF. TEF and SDR were mixed with radiolucent glass beads, while air bubbles inherently present in TBF served as markers. Each material application was scanned twice by micro-computed tomography before and after light curing. Scans were subjected to image segmentation for calculation of the shrinkage vectors.

Results

The absence of a flowable liner resulted in the greatest shrinkage vectors. A thin flowable liner (gp2-fl/TEF + TBFbulk) resulted in larger overall shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than a thick flowable liner (gp4-fl/TEF + TBF). A thin flowable liner and incremental application (gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental) yielded the smallest shrinkage vectors. SDR yielded slightly smaller shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than that observed in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF.

Conclusions

Thick flowable liner layers had a more pronounced stress-relieving effect than thin layers regardless of the flowable liner type.

Clinical relevance

It is recommended to apply a flowable liner (thin or thick) beneath bulk-fill composites, preferably incrementally.

Probing the hierarchy of evidence to identify the best strategy for placing class II dental composite restorations using current materials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to present a synopsis of the existing clinical and in vitro evidence regarding placement of direct class II restorations with dental composites of varying viscosities, focusing on the marginal integrity achievable.

OVERVIEW

The literature on class II composites placed with various techniques was searched through PubMed, Scopus, and the citations of identified articles, focusing on aspects related to adaptation and clinical performance. Studies comparing layering of conventional composite to layering with a flowable liner, including the "snow plow technique," use of warmed composite, flowable bulk-fill liners with a conventional composite capping layer, and bulk-fill restorative in a single or incremental fill (including placement with sonic energy and dual-curing) CONCLUSIONS: In vitro and clinical evidence does not support any one specific method or material type for achieving optimal performance when restoring class II cavity preparations with current dental composites.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although there are many available placement methods and types of composite materials on the market for use in class II restorations, the reasonable success presented in the clinical and laboratory literature for the various approaches suggests that the most important factor for achieving success is likely careful and proper placement and light-curing technique, independent of the approach.

Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations

BACKGROUND

Resin-based composite (RBC) is currently accepted as a viable material for the restoration of caries for posterior permanent teeth requiring surgical treatment. Despite the fact that the thermal conductivity of the RBC restorative material closely approximates that of natural tooth structure, postoperative hypersensitivity is sometimes still an issue. Dental cavity liners have historically been used to protect the pulp from the toxic effects of some dental restorative materials and to prevent the pain of thermal conductivity by placing an insulating layer between restorative material and the remaining tooth structure. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of using dental cavity liners in the placement of Class I and Class II resin-based composite posterior restorations in permanent teeth in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 12 November 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 12 November 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 November 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 November 2018) and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 12 November 2018). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the use of liners under Class I and Class II posterior resin-based composite restorations in permanent teeth (in both adults and children). We included both parallel and split-mouth designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We utilized standard methodological procedures prescribed by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. Two review authors screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion against the review inclusion criteria. We conducted risk of bias assessments and data extraction independently and in duplicate. Where information was unclear we contacted study authors for clarification.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies, recruiting over 700 participants, compared the use of dental cavity liners to no liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.Seven studies evaluated postoperative hypersensitivity measured by various methods. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. There was inconsistent evidence regarding postoperative hypersensitivity (either measured using cold response or patient-reported), with a benefit shown at some, but not all, time points (low-quality evidence).Four trials measured restoration longevity. Two of the studies were judged to be at high risk and two at unclear risk of bias. No difference in restoration failure rates were shown at 1 year follow-up, with no failures reported in either group for three of the four studies; the fourth study had a risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 15.00) (low-quality evidence). Three studies evaluated restoration longevity at 2 years follow-up and, again, no failures were shown in either group.No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconsistent, low-quality evidence regarding the difference in postoperative hypersensitivity subsequent to placing a dental cavity liner under Class I and Class II posterior resin-based composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth in adults or children 15 years or older. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate a difference in the longevity of restorations placed with or without dental cavity liners.

Five-year Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled and a Nanohybrid Composite in Class IV Cavities

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a nanofilled and a nanohybrid composite, in combination with manufacturer-recommended etch-and-rinse adhesives, in class IV cavities. Thirty-four patients aged 14-46 years (mean age, 27.1 years) comprised the study group. Twenty-six patients received two class IV restorations and eight patients received four class IV restorations. For each patient, half the number of restorations were performed using a nanohybrid composite (Ceram X duo) and the remaining half used a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme XT), with two- (XP Bond) and three-step (Scotchbond Multipurpose) etch-and-rinse adhesives, respectively. Two experienced examiners evaluated the restorations for retention, color match, marginal discoloration, wear/loss of anatomic form, caries formation, marginal adaptation, and surface texture to compare the baseline (after placement) and annual recalls over 5 years. The cumulative success rates for the Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram X duo restorations after five years were 86.2% and 89.7%, respectively. Four Filtek Supreme XT and three Ceram X duo restorations failed. There was no statistically significant difference between the nanofilled and nanohybrid composites at any of the evaluation periods for any of the parameters evaluated. Despite the limited number of restorations, all restorations were clinically acceptable regarding retention, color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomic form, the formation of caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture, except the failed restorations. Fracture was the main cause of restoration failure.

Nanofilled Resin Composite Properties and Clinical Performance: A Review

The aim of this review was to compile recent evidence related to nanofilled resin composite materials regarding the properties and clinical performance. Special attention was given to mechanical properties, such as strength, hardness, abrasive wear, water sorption, and solubility. The clinical performance of nanocomposite materials compared with hybrid resin composites was also addressed in terms of retention and success rates, marginal adaptation, color match, and surface roughness. A search of English peer-reviewed dental literature (2003-2017) from PubMed and MEDLINE databases was conducted using the terms "nanocomposites" or "nanofilled resin composite" and "clinical evaluation." The list was screened, and 82 papers that were relevant to the objectives of this work were included in the review. Mechanical properties of nanocomposites are generally comparable to those of hybrid composites but higher than microfilled composites. Nanocomposites presented lower abrasive wear than hybrids but higher sorption values. Their clinical performance was comparable to that of hybrid composites.

Clinical performance of laminate and non-laminate resin composite restorations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A systematic review was undertaken to determine the clinical outcomes of resin modified glass-ionomer cement or glass-ionomer cement-resin composite (RMGIC/GIC-RC) laminate restorations and flowable resin composite (FRC)-lined RC restorations compared to that of non-laminate RC restorations.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched and filtered for relevant papers by assessing titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were included, comparing the clinical performance of RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations and FRC-lined restorations with RC restorations as the control. The articles were categorized and critically appraised. Raw data were used for a fixed effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included in the review. Five evaluated FRC-lined restorations, and eight studies evaluated RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations, comparing with non-laminate RC restorations. Three of eight RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations assessed only postoperative sensitivity. A meta-analysis could only be conducted in three studies with the FRC-lined restorations as the intervention. The meta-analysis found no significant difference in clinical failures between FRC-lined RC restorations and RC restorations with no lining (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current clinical evidence, a FRC lining is no more advantageous than RC restorations with no FRC lining. More long-term RCTs are required, particularly for evaluating RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations.

One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites

AIM

In the present study, we evaluated the 1-year clinical performance of a conventional posterior composite resin and three bulk-fill composite resins.

METHODS

Fifty patients with four class II restorations under occlusion were enrolled in the present study. A total of 200 restorations were placed in the cavity, 50 for each material (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable and Filtek P60, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, and SonicFill). One operator placed the restorations in the cavity, and 1 week later the patients were called for baseline examination. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations once every 3 months for 1 year, according to United States Public Health Service criteria. The data were analyzed using SPSS. Non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Friedman) were used for the analysis at a confidence level of 95%.

RESULTS

The 1-year recall rate was 86%. All restorations showed minor modifications after 1 year. However, no statistically-significant differences were detected between the materials' performance at baseline and after 1 year for all criteria (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The bulk-fill composite resin materials showed similar clinical performance when compared with a conventional posterior composite resin. Further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.

Survival time of direct dental restorations in adults

<title>Abstract</title><sec><title>Introduction</title><p>The presence of dental caries is the main reason for the placement and replacement of restorations. Maintaining restorations to a satisfactory clinical condition is a challenge, despite the evolution of materials and surgical operative techniques.</p></sec><sec><title>Objective</title><p>To investigate the survival time and technical-operatory characteristics of dental restorations among adults in Teresina-PI.</p></sec><sec><title>Material and method</title><p>Data collection was carried out from September 2009 to January 2010 at a non-profit dental service. Data were collected at the moment of restoration replacement. The sample consisted of 262 defective restorations in 139 individuals. Survival time was calculated using the placement date that was registered on the individual’s dental form. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the survival time of the different types of restorations and the chi-square test was used to assess the association between qualitative variables, at a 5% significance level.</p></sec><sec><title>Result</title><p>The median survival time of the restorations was 2 years. The survival time for amalgam was higher than for composite and glass ionomer cement (p=0.004). The most replaced dental material was the composite (66.4%). The majority of the replaced restorations had been placed in anterior teeth, in proximal surfaces.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Amalgam restorations have a longer survival time than composite resin. Technical and operatory variables had no influence on the survival time of restorations. Dental restorations have a low survival time and this fact might be associated with the decion-making process that is adopted by the professionals.</p></sec>

Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to analyze the survival of posterior composite restorations published within the last 19 years (1996-2015).

METHODS

In this study only prospective, clinical trials with specification of the failure rate according to Class I/II composite fillings were included. Studies were analyzed according to the observation period (all studies vs. short-term vs. long-term studies). Retrospective studies and/or open laminate studies, tunnel restorations and Class V restorations were excluded. The following variables possibly influencing the failure rate were extracted from the studies: observation period, recall rate, average age of patients, number of patients, ratio of Class I/II fillings, number of restorations, ratio of premolars/molars, operator, method of isolation, bonding generation and filler size.

RESULTS

A total of 88 studies were included for statistical analysis. The observation period of the studies varied between 1 and 17 years, while most of the studies did not last longer than 5 years. Fracture of the restorations, secondary caries and marginal gap are the main causes for failure in the first 5 years (in descending order), while fracture and secondary caries are similarly distributed in long-term studies. Variables of investigation differed greatly in significance according to the respective observation period. The observation period, the recall rate, the ratio of Class I/II fillings and the number of restorations and patients had a significant influence on the overall failure rate when including all studies (short- and long-term). A linear correlation between the observation period and the failure rate was observed. In long-term studies these variables were not significant any longer. No significant difference in the failure rates between the materials per study was observed. The most common commercial composites investigated were: Tetric Ceram, Surefil, Filtek Supreme (incl. XT), Filtek Z250. The mean annual failure rate was 1.46% (±1.74%) for short-term studies and 1.97% (±1.53) for long-term studies. There is still a big need for clinical studies lasting longer than 5 years, as failure rates of composite restorations in posterior teeth increases with longer observation periods.

SIGNIFICANCE

A decreasing failure rate with an increasing recall rate as observed in our study suggests a patient selection in regard to availability and dental awareness. Internationally standardized evaluation criteria are mandatory in order to allow comparisons of the outcomes of clinical studies.

Resin composite class I restorations: a 54-month randomized clinical trial

The objective of this longitudinal clinical randomized trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofilled and a nanohybrid resin composite in Class I occlusal restorations of posterior teeth over the course of 54 months. Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with Adper Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE) and nanofilled (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE), nanohybrid (Esthet-X, Dentsply) and microhybrid Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) used as a control. After 54 months, the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis, at a level of significance of 5%. Five failed restorations were observed during the follow-up. A change to unacceptable restoration occurred for one Esthet-X, two Filtek Z350, and two Filtek Z250 restorations, which received the clinically unacceptable score, Charlie, for both anatomic form and marginal adaptation. Secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity occurred in one Filtek Z250 and one Filtek Z350 restoration. When the five evaluation periods (baseline and six, 12, 30, and 54 months) were compared, significant differences were found in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 and Filtek Z350. Significant differences in the roughness criteria (p=0.005) were also observed when the three composites were compared after 54 months (Filtek Z350 > Filtek Z250 > Esthet-X), always within clinically acceptable limits. The materials investigated showed acceptable clinical performance for Class I restoration after 54 months. Long-term reevaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites.

Proximal Box Elevation With Resin Composite and the Dogma of Biological Width: Clinical R2-Technique and Critical Review

Provided that moisture control is possible, today's resin composite materials can be applied successfully in the restorative treatment of extensively decayed teeth. This suggests that restorative margins will be increasingly located below the cementoenamel junction, probably invading biological width. The recently introduced technique of proximal box elevation (PBE) offers the possibility of performing a stepwise elevation of deep proximal cavities to create more favorable preparation margins for direct or indirect restorations. Clinical instructions for the restoration of extensively damaged teeth are given through this presentation. A two-step R2-technique will be shown, and a critical review of the dogma of biological width will be presented.

Influence of flowable composite and restorative technique on microleakage of class II restorations

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage in class II cavities restored with dental composite by varying the thickness of two flowable composite resins and the restorative technique.

METHODS

A total of 130 cavities were prepared on proximal surfaces of bovine teeth and randomly divided in 13 groups. Twelve experimental groups were performed using flowable composite resin as the liner, and they were divided according to the type of flowable composite resin (Filtek Z350 Flow-Z350F and SureFil SDR Flow-SUR), the thickness of the flowable composite (0.5, 1, or 2 mm), and the restorative technique (flowable composite applied at the cavosurface angle or amelodentinal junction) (n = 10). A control group was performed without using a flowable composite. Following restorative procedures and thermocycling, the samples were immersed in Methylene Blue for 2 h, and prepared for analysis in an absorbance spectrophotometer. All results were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the flowable composites (P > 0.05). The restorative techniques influenced microleakage and were flowable composite dependent (P ≤ 0.05). The lower thickness of the flowable composite provided less microleakage (P ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use a lower thickness of a flowable composite resin provided less microleakage, suggesting a better sealing tooth-restoration interface.

Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation

PURPOSE

This prospective long-term clinical trial evaluated and compared the three-year clinical performance of an ormocer, a nanofilled, and a nanoceramic resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities.

METHODS

Forty patients, each with four Class I and II restorations under occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 160 restorations were placed, 25% for each material, as follows: an ormocer-based composite, Admira; a nanofilled resin composite, Filtek Supreme XT; a nanoceramic resin composite, Ceram X; and a microhybrid resin composite, Tetric Ceram. A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturers' instructions. Immediately after placement the restorations were finished/polished. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at yearly intervals after placement by two other independent examiners using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The changes in the USPHS parameters during the three-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test. Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

All materials showed only minor changes, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after three years. Only two ormocer, one nanofilled, and one microhybrid restorations in molars failed because of loss of retention. Regarding the clinical performance, there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic composites provided acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period.

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

Aim:

To assess the clinical efficacy of posterior composite resin restorations placed directly and indirectly in posterior teeth after five years.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 108 cavities in 54 patients were restored with three direct composite resins (Filtek SupremeXT [FSXT], Tetric Evo Ceram [TEC], AELITE Aesthetic [AA]) and two indirect composite resins (Estenia [E] and Tescera ATL [TATL]). All restorations were evaluated by two examiners using the United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and five years after placement. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher exact and McNemar χ2 tests.

Results:

At baseline, 4% (five) of the restored teeth presented postoperative sensitivity; however, only one of them (a member of the E group) required canal treatment and replacement after two years. At the five-year evaluation, all restorations were retained, with Alpha ratings at 100%. Only one tooth (in the TEC group) required replacement after three years due to secondary caries. Color match, surface texture, and marginal integrity were predominantly scored as Alpha after five years for all groups. After that time, marginal discoloration was scored as Alpha in 64% of AE restorations, 70% of TATL restorations, 73% of E restorations, and 87% of FSXT restorations. There were no Charlie scores recorded for any of the restorative systems.

Conclusions:

Under controlled clinical conditions, indirect composite resin inlays and direct composite resin restorations exhibited an annual failure rate of 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively, after five years. Therefore, the investigated materials showed acceptable clinical performance, and no significant differences were found among them.

Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this prospective clinical follow up was to evaluate the long term clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations with and without intermediate layer of flowable resin composite.

METHODS

Each participant received at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations of the hybrid resin composite. One resin composite restoration of each pair (59) was chosen at random to be restored with an intermediary layer with flowable resin composite. The other was restored without. The 118 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 7 years.

RESULTS

Four drop outs were registered during the 7-year follow up (2 with and 2 without flowable) restorations. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 18 of the evaluated 46 patients were considered as high risk patients. Seventeen failures were observed, 8 in restorations with and 9 in restorations without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite, resulting in a 14.9% failure rate after 7 years. The main reasons for failure were: fracture of resin composite (8), secondary caries (4) and cusp fracture (3). No statistical difference was seen between restorations restored with and without flowable layer.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance during the 7-year evaluation. The use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer did not result in improved effectiveness of the Class II restorations.