Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in restorations with self-adhesive resin: a randomized split-mouth design controlled study

Postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations restored with self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill resin composites: A randomized clinical split-mouth trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of a self-adhesive bulk-fill resin composite with that of a conventional bulk-fill resin composite in posterior restorations.

METHODS

Class I and II (n = 166) cavities of at least 3 mm depth, in 83 participants were restored by: (TEST: Surefil one™ Self-Adhesive bulk-fill (n = 83); and CONTROL: Filtek™ Bulk-Fill posterior composites (n = 83). The presence and intensity of POS associated with the restorations was evaluated at 24 h, 1 week and 1 month intervals using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Comparisons of POS presence between the two treatment groups were made using the Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, while Mann-Whitney and Friedman tests were used to compare the intensity of POS (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Forty-two of participants (25.3%; 95% CI 19.3 to 32.4) reported presence of POS after 24 h and none of the participants reported POS after 1 month. The presence of POS was not significantly affected by the restorative material after 24 h, 1 week and 1 month (p>0.05). After 1 week, the participants in the Surefil one™ group reported significantly less intensity of POS than the participants in the Filtek™ Bulk-Fill group (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Surefil one™ self-adhesive resin composite did not significantly increase the presence of POS compared to the use of the conventional bulk-fill resin composite. However, the intensity of POS was significantly less in the Surefil one ™ group after one week.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of a self-adhesive bulk-fill resin composite in posterior restorations did not increase the presence of POS more than the use of a conventional bulk-fill resin composite. However, it decreased the intensity of POS after one week. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; the registration number is NCT05567263.

Comparative Assessment of Different Pre-Treatment Bonding Strategies to Improve the Adhesion of Self-Adhesive Composites to Dentin

The aim of this study is to compare the adhesive interface formed in dentin, using self-adhesive composites applied with different bonding strategies, by testing the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and ultramorphology through the use of light microscopy. Permanent, sound human molars were randomly allocated to six experimental groups. The groups included a negative control group, where only etching was performed via EtchOnly; a positive control group where an adhesive was applied, OptiBondFL (OBFL); and an experimental group where a primer was applied using a co-curing strategy together with a composite (Primer_CoCuring). The samples were sectioned into microspecimens for μTBS (n = 8) and into 1-mm thick slabs for light microscopy using Masson’s trichrome staining protocol (n = 3). The statistical analysis included a two-way ANOVA for μTBS data and Tukey’s HSD was used as a post-hoc test (significance level of 5%; SPSS v. 26.0). The results of the μTBS revealed that the self-adhesive composite (F = 6.0, p < 0.018) and the bonding strategy (F = 444.1, p < 0.001) significantly affected the bond strength to dentin. However, their interactions were not significant (F = 1.2, p = 0.29). Etching dentin with no additional treatment revealed the lowest μTBS (VF_EtchOnly = 2.4 ± 0.8 MPa; CC_EtchOnly = 2.0 ± 0.4 MPa), which was significantly different from using a primer (VF_CoCu = 8.8 ± 0.8 MPa; CC_CoCu = 6.3 ± 1.0 MPa) or using the full adhesive (VF_OptiBondFL = 22.4 ± 0.3 MPa; CC_OptibondFL = 21.2 ± 0.4 MPa). Microscopy images revealed that the experimental Primer_CoCuring was the only group with no collagen fibers exposed to the dentin−composite interface. Overall, the use of a primer, within the limitations of this study, increased the bonding of the self-adhesive composite and provided sufficient infiltration of the collagen based on light-microscopic imaging.

Influence of the self-adhering strategy on microhardness, sorption, solubility, color stability, and cytotoxicity compared to bulk-fill and conventional resin composites

OBJECTIVES

To analyze and compare, in vitro, the microhardness, sorption, solubility, color stability, and cytotoxicity of three types of resin composites: self-adhesive (SARC) (Dyad Flow (DF)/Kerr), bulk-fill (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow (FBF)/3 M ESPE), and conventional (Filtek Z350XT Flow (Z350)/3 M ESPE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty cylindrical specimens were prepared using a split metal mold (15 mm × 1 mm), divided into 3 groups (n = 10) according to the material used. Vickers hardness (VH) was calculated from three indentations (300gf/15 s) per specimen. The sorption and solubility were measured according to the ISO 4049:2009 specification after storing in distilled water for 7 days. The color of each resin composite was measured using a portable digital spectrophotometer according to the CIELAB system. After a 7-day immersion in coffee, the color variation (∆E) was calculated. Following the ISO 10993:2012, the cytotoxicity in Vero cells was evaluated through the MTT assay. The results were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the studied groups. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the assessments in each studied group. For cytotoxicity analysis, the data were compared by the ANOVA test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

DF showed the lowest VH (28.67), highest sorption (0.543 µg/mm³) and solubility (1.700 µg/mm³), and higher ∆E after 7 days of coffee immersion (p = 0.008). The resin composites studied were considered non-cytotoxic.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARC presented inferior mechanical and physical-chemical properties than bulk-fill and conventional resin composites, with comparable cytotoxicity against Vero cells.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The simplification of the clinical protocol of SARC can minimize the number of possible failures during the restorative technique. However, considering their inferior physical and mechanical properties, their coverage with materials of higher mechanical properties and physical-chemical stability should be considered.

One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative

This prospective study assessed the dual-curing self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative Surefil one. The restorations were placed and reviewed by dental practitioners who are members of a practice-based research network in the United States. Seven practitioners filled 60 cavities (20 class I, 19 class II and 21 class V) in 41 patients with Surefil one without adhesive, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Patients were also contacted to report postoperative hypersensitivity one to four weeks after placement. The only patient that showed moderate hypersensitivity after 1 year had previously reported symptoms that were unlikely associated to the class I molar restoration. One class II restoration in a fractured maxillary molar was partially lost. The remaining restorations were found to be in clinically acceptable condition resulting in an annual failure rate of 2%. Color match showed the lowest number of acceptable scores (88%) revealing significant changes over time (P = 0.0002). No significant differences were found for the other criteria (P > 0.05). The novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed clinically acceptable results in stress-bearing class I and II as well as non-retentive class V cavities at 1-year recall.

Morphological analysis and immunohistochemical expression in restorations with self-adhesive resin: A randomized split-mouth design-controlled study

Background

To evaluate the morphology and immunohistochemical expression of MMP-9, TIMP-3, COL-I, TNF-alfa and COX-2 in the dentinopulp complex of restorations with self adhesive composite (Vertise Flow/Kerr) compared with conventional resin composite with self-etching adhesive (Filtek Z250/3M ESPE and Clearfil SE Bond/Kuraray-Noritake).

Material and Methods

A randomized, controlled, double-blind, split-mouth, two-arm clinical trial was conducted. Twenty-seven volunteers with third molars indicated for extraction received two deep class I restorations, one with each material. The morphology and immunohistochemical expression were measured at 15 days after the restorative procesures. The data were submitted to the Fisher`s Exct test (α=0.05).

Results

Through morphological analysis, a slight disorganization of the odontoblastic layer was visualized, along with a slight inflammatory infiltrate in the VERT and CSEB groups (p< 0.05). In immunohistochemical analysis, TNF-alpha, MMP-9, TIMP-3 and COX-2 demonstrated more cases of positive pulp labeling.

Conclusions

Self-adhesive resin composite and conventional resin composite with a self-etching bonding agent promoted slight alterations in the dentin-pulp complex, indicating a repair ability and reversibility of the inflammatory process against aggressions of the adhesive restorative procedure. Key words:Immunohistochemistry, inflammation, randomized clinical trial, self-adhering composite, dentistry.

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.

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

BACKGROUND

Adhesive restorations allow a conservative approach to caries management and are increasingly used as a restorative option in pediatric dentistry. Placement can be difficult in children because of the cooperation required for multiple bonding steps. Due to this, it is vital to assess if novel, simpler strategies have been featured in clinical trials and if clinical trials are researching the different existing adhesive strategies.

METHODS

This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis adapted for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus and EMBASE were used for systematic search, using free keywords and controlled search terms. Clinical trials of children requiring a restorative intervention which featured adhesive strategies were included. Only peer-reviewed trials of primary teeth restored with resin composites, published in the last 10-year period were eligible. Data charting was accomplished independently by two reviewers, and studies were summarized according to their date, type, intervention, sample size, observation period, outcomes and conclusions. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

700 potentially relevant references were found, which after a rigorous inclusion scheme, resulted in a total of 8 eligible clinical trials. Out of these, 7 were randomized clinical trials. Most trials featured a split-mouth design and the observation period ranged from 12 to 36 months. The trials evaluated interventions of two self-adhesive composites, two bulk-fill composites, two novel composites, one compomer and eight adhesives from different strategies. Most studies (4/8) included were judged to raise some concerns regarding risk of bias, while two were classified as high risk and two as low.

CONCLUSION

Few studies comparing adhesive strategies were found, especially adhesives in sound substrates. The existing studies do not reflect all current approaches that could be used in pediatric dentistry. Further studies addressing bioactive composites and contemporary adhesives are necessary.