30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite

Clinical evaluation of posterior restorations over wet and dry dentin using an etch-and-rinse adhesive: A 36-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical performance of posterior restorations over wet and dry dentin with an etch-and-rinse adhesive after 36 months of clinical service.

METHODS

Forty-five participants were recruited, each one had at least two posterior teeth that needed restoration. Ninety restorations were placed on Class I or Class II cavities. For the restoration protocol, a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2) was applied over wet (WD) or dry dentin (DD) and later restored with a bulk-fill composite (Filtek Bulk Fill) under rubber dam isolation. Each restoration was evaluated using the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria after 6, 12, and 36 months of clinical service, regarding the following principal restoration characteristics: postoperative sensitivity, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, fracture of material and retention, and recurrence of caries. Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05) and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 36 months of clinical evaluation, no significant difference between groups was observed in each FDI criterion (p > 0.05). Twenty restorations (WD=10, DD=10) showed minor marginal staining, and twenty-two restorations (WD=11, DD=11) presented small marginal adaptation defects (p > 0.05). Four restorations were lost (WD = 2, DD = 2) and the fracture rates (95% confidence interval) were 94.9% for each one, without significant difference between wet and dry dentin (p > 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

The degree of dentin moisture does not seem to affect the clinical performance of a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive in posterior restorations when the adhesive is applied vigorously over the dentine surface.

The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical performance of restorations with ground and unground enamel for diastema closure.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty-four patients attended and received two to ten composite build-ups for diastema closure. The restorations were performed separately by grinding and not grinding the enamel on the proximal surfaces on symmetric teeth. A nanofill direct composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) for restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls.

RESULTS

The cumulative success rate of direct composite build-up with ground and unground enamel was 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Six restorations with unground enamel failed due to fracture. No significant difference was found between the restorations with ground enamel and unground enamel with regard to the evaluation criteria.

CONCLUSION

The 5-year success rates of restorations with ground and unground enamel were excellent. The success rate of restorations with ground enamel was higher than that of restorations with unground enamel. Fracture was the reason for failure in the restorations with unground enamel.

Clinical effectiveness of alkasite versus nanofilled resin composite in the restoration of occlusal carious lesions in permanent molar teeth of children: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of alkasite with nanofilled resin composite restorations for occlusal caries lesions in permanent molar teeth of children, at one-year follow-up.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled clinical trial with parallel design, 38 children aged 7-13 years with occlusal caries lesions on 59 first permanent molars were randomly allocated into two groups, Group 1: Filtek™ Z350XT (nanocomposite) and Group 2: Cention N^® (alkasite resin composite). The restorations were evaluated at one year using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

All restorations had either Alpha or Bravo scores at one-year follow-up. In Group 1, all restorations scored Alpha, while one restoration each (3.6%) in Group 2 scored Bravo for fracture and marginal adaptation. All restorations in both groups scored Alpha for retention, secondary caries, and post-operative sensitivity. For anatomic form, all restorations in Group 1 scored Alpha, while three (10.7%) restorations in Group 2 had Bravo scores. For marginal discolouration, three restorations in both groups scored Bravo (11.5% and 10.7%, respectively). For surface roughness, one restoration (3.8%) in Group 1 and three restorations in Group 2 (10.7%) scored Bravo. The comparative results between the two groups for all the variables in the USPHS criteria were not statistically significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The performances of the nanofilled composite and alkasite were clinically acceptable and comparable. Alkasite can be an alternative material for the restoration of occlusal caries lesions in permanent molars of children.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trial was registered at Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI Reg no: CTRI/2020/12/029830 Dated: 15/12/2020).

The effect of different application modes of a 1-step self-etch adhesive on the clinical performance of Class I composite restorations: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical performance of a 1-step self-etch dentin adhesive that was applied according to the manufacturers' recommendations, doubling the adhesive application time and layer in Class I cavities with a composite resin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 39 patients aged between 14 and 43 (mean age: 19.1) years were enrolled in the study. Each patient received three restorations. In these three restorations, a 1-step self-etch adhesive was applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations (control group), by doubling the adhesive application time, and with double layers. The restorations were evaluated according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and 1, 2, 3, and 4-year recalls.

RESULTS

After 4 years, the success rate was 100% for restorations with the adhesive applied according to the manufacturers' recommendations, 96.9% for restorations applied by doubling the adhesive application time, and 93.8% for restorations applied with double adhesive layers. There was no significant difference between the three application methods among all the evaluation periods regarding the evaluation criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4-year success rates of a 1-step self-etch dentin adhesive that was applied according to the manufacturers' recommendation, by doubling the adhesive application time, and with double layers were excellent.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

It is not recommended to double the adhesive application time nor apply a double layer of a 1-step self-etch adhesive because it does not improve the clinical performance of Class I composite restorations.

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.

Clinical performance of class I cavities restored with bulk fill composite at a 1-year follow-up using the FDI criteria: a randomized clinical trial

Objectives

The present study aimed to evaluate the survival rate and clinical performance of class 1 composite restorations restored with the Filtek Bulk Fill composite material using either the bulk fill technique or the incremental technique at baseline (1 week) and at 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up.

Materials and Methods

Forty-two patients with at least 2 carious teeth were selected. Following randomization, one tooth was restored with the Filtek Bulk Fill composite using the incremental fill technique, and the other tooth was restored with the same material using the bulk fill technique. Patients were recalled for follow-up at baseline (1 week) and 3, 6, and 12 months and evaluated using the FDI criteria.

Results

The data were analyzed using the McNemar χ² test. No statistically significant differences were found between the scores of teeth restored with either technique. At baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up; there were no significant difference in the clinical status of both groups of restorations.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, using the bulk fill technique for restorations with the Filtek Bulk Fill material seems to be equally efficient to using the incremental fill technique.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trials Registry-India Identifier: CTRI/2017/07/008961.

Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of posterior high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations in a high caries incidence population: interim results of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the clinical performance of two bulk-fill (BF) and one conventional resin composite in a population with a high caries incidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 138 class I and II restorations were performed and randomly divided into three groups (n = 46) with equal allocation: Filtek BF (FBF; 3M ESPE), Tetric EvoCeram BF (TBF; Ivoclar Vivadent), and control Filtek Z250 (Z250; 3M ESPE). The evaluations were performed using the USPHS and FDI criteria at baseline and after 12 and 36 months by a previously calibrated evaluator. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests for paired data were used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The DMFT index at baseline was 9.44, with 87% from the decayed component. After 36 months, 108 restorations (n = 36) were evaluated. Two failures were observed for TBF at marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, resulting in a survival rate of 94.44% and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.26%. No equivalence was observed between the criteria for surface roughness, marginal adaptation, and discoloration.

CONCLUSIONS

The 36-month clinical performance of high-viscosity BF resin composites was comparable to conventional incremental-filled resin composites. The FDI criteria better presented the restorations' clinical success. However, in the case of failure, both criteria provided the same result.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

High-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites showed excellent performance after 36 months in a high caries incidence population. It can be considered a simplified alternative restoration method that reduces operating time and minimizes possible operator errors.

Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale Criteria: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective  This study was aimed to compare the 12-month clinical performance of two full-body bulk-fill resin composites Filtek bulk fill/3M ESPE (FBF) and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill/Ivoclar Vivadent (TBF) and a conventional microhybrid resin composite Filtek Z250/3M ESPE (Z250) using the modified the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Also, the agreement between the two evaluation criteria was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up.

Materials and Methods  A total of 138 class I and II restorations were placed in posterior teeth (split-mouth design) of 46 volunteers following manufacturer’s instructions and bonded with a self-etching bonding agent (Clear fill SE Bond/Kuraray). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up by three previously calibrated dentists (Cohen’s K = 0.84).

Statistical Analysis  Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test were used to evaluating the homogeneity of distribution of the clinical characteristics. Friedman’s test was applied to evaluate differences among the resin composites. The results obtained for the USPHS and FDI criteria at the different observation times were compared using the Wilcoxon test. A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted for all tests.

Results  After 12 months (recall rate, 78.3%, n = 36 patients), the overall success rate was 99.07% for both criteria. Only one failed restoration (0.93%) was detected for each system during follow-up in the TBF group.

Conclusion  The bulk-fill resin composites showed satisfactory clinical performance compared with conventional resin composite after 12 months. The percentage of the acceptable scores was significantly higher for the USPHS criteria, due to discrepancies in the score description for each criterion.

Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to answer the following research question: Are there differences in the color match and surface texture of nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in patients with direct posterior restorations?

DATA

Randomized clinical trials that compared nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in direct restoration in posterior teeth were included. For the analysis of the bias the risk of bias tool (RoB) was used. Meta-analyses of different pairs (nanofilled vs. hybrid and nanohybrid vs. hybrid composite) were conducted for surface texture and color match and other secondary outcomes at different follow-ups, using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I² statistics. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

SOURCES

A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library and SIGLE, without restrictions. IADR abstracts (2001-2019), unpublished and ongoing trials registries, dissertations and theses were also searched.

STUDY SELECTION

28 studies remained. No study was considered to be at low RoB; four studies were judged to have high RoB, and the remaining were judged to have unclear RoB.

RESULTS

For the primary and secondary outcomes variables no significant differences were detected between nanofilled/nanohybrid restorations and hybrid composite restorations in any of the study follow-ups (p > 0.08). The body of evidence for surface texture and color match was classified as moderate or low.

CONCLUSION

No evidence of difference was found between nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in any of the clinical parameters evaluated.

A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

OBJECTIVES

Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations.

METHODOLOGY

In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.

RESULTS

At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.

Effect of Surface Sealant Reapplication on Clinical Performance of HEMA-containing and HEMA-free Self-etch Adhesives: Two-year Results

Purpose:

To evaluate the clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives over two years with and without the application of a surface sealant.

Methods and Materials:

In total, 160 restorations in 40 patients were performed for occlusal caries. Each patient received four Class I restorations, which included a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)–containing (Clearfil S3 Bond) and HEMA-free (G-aenial Bond) one-step self-etch adhesive system with and without surface sealant. Half of the restored teeth received Fortify Plus (Bisco) surface sealant material, and the other half were polished with Sof-Lex discs only. Two experienced calibrated examiners clinically evaluated the restorations at baseline and at one- and two-year recalls according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The filled surface sealant material was reapplied at each evaluation period.

Results:

After two years, none of the restorations had failed. There were no significant differences between the two dentin adhesives with or without a surface sealant application among the evaluation periods. Each dentin adhesive with and without surface sealant showed significant changes from the clinically ideal (Alfa) to clinically acceptable (Bravo) with regard to marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and surface texture. Sealed restorations exhibited lower ideal restoration rates with regard to color matching and surface texture and higher ideal restoration rates with respect to marginal adaptation compared with unsealed restorations. In addition, the surface sealant application reduced the marginal discoloration of the HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive.

Conclusions:

The two-year success rates of HEMA-containing and HEMA-free self-etch adhesives with and without surface sealing application were excellent. Although the surface sealant application was not effective with regard to changes in color matching and surface texture, it improved the marginal adaptation of the dentin adhesive and the marginal discoloration of a HEMA-free adhesive.

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.

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

This systematic review was carried out to assess the clinical effectiveness of nanofilled and nanohybrid composites used for direct restorations in comparison with microhybrid composites. The guidelines for the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed. A search of articles published from July 1996 to February 2017 was performed in PubMed, SciVerse Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, and the Cochrane Library. The present review selected only randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical performance of a nanofilled or nanohybrid composite for direct restorations with that of a microhybrid composite. The research found 201 studies. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the criteria of the present review. However, the included studies were characterized by great methodological diversities. As a general trend, nanofilled and nanohybrid composites were found to be capable of clinical performance, marginal quality, and resistance to wear similar to that of traditional composites without showing improved surface characteristics. The risk of bias of included studies was judged unclear or high. The clinical performance of nanofilled/nanohybrid composites was found to be comparable to that of traditional composites in the posterior area. The data concerning anterior and cervical restorations were insufficient. With regard to the esthetic properties, there is a compelling need for studies on anterior teeth in which the operators are kept unaware of the restorative material. Nanofilled/nanohybrid composites seem to be a valid alternative to traditional microhybrid composites, and at the moment, there is low-level evidence attesting a lack of their superiority.

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.

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.

Does the adhesive strategy influence the post-operative sensitivity in adult patients with posterior resin composite restorations?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on the risk and intensity of postoperative sensitivity (POS) in posterior resin composite restorations bonded with self-etch (SE) and etch-and-rinse (ER) adhesives.

SOURCE

A comprehensive search was performed in the MEDLINE via PubMeb, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO and Cochrane Library and SIGLE without restrictions. The abstracts of the annual conference of the IADR (1990-2014), unpublished and ongoing trials registry were also searched. Dissertations and theses were searched using the ProQuest Dissertations and Periodicos Capes Theses databases.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized clinical trials that compared the clinical effectiveness of SE and ER used for direct resin composite restorations in permanent dentition of adult patients. The risk/intensity of POS was the primary outcome. The risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration was used. The meta-analysis was performed on the studies considered 'low' risk of bias.

DATA

After duplicates removal, 2600 articles were identified but only 29 remained in the qualitative synthesis. Five were considered to be 'high' risk of bias and eleven were considered to be 'unclear' in the key domains, yielding 13 studies for meta-analysis. The overall relative risk of the spontaneous POS was 0.63 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.15), while the stimuli-induced POS was 0.99 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.56). The overall standardized mean difference was 0.08 (95%CI -0.19 to 0.35). No overall effect was revealed in the meta-analyses, meaning that no influence of the ER or SE strategy on POS.

SIGNIFICANCE

The type of adhesive strategy (ER or SE) for posterior resin composite restorations does not influence the risk and intensity of POS. CRD42014006617.

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.

Influence of fiber inserts, type of composite, and gingival margin location on the microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations

This study evaluated the influence of fiber inserts, type of composites, and location of the gingival seat on microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations. Fifty noncarious human third molars were selected for the study. Standardized Class II box type cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal side of 45 teeth. The gingival margin was placed above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) on the mesial side and below the CEJ on the distal side. The remaining five teeth received no cavity preparations. The prepared samples were divided randomly on the basis of type of composite and presence or absence of fiber inserts, into four experimental groups of 10 teeth each and two control groups of five teeth each. The groups were defined as follows: group I (n=10) - Z350 XT; group II (n=10) - Z350 XT with fibers; group III (n=10) - P90; group IV (n=10) - P90 with fibers; and group V (n=5) - positive controls, cavities were not restored; group VI (n=5) - negative controls, no cavities were prepared. The samples were stored in distilled water in incubator at 37°C for 24 hours and then subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling (5°C and 55°C) with a dwell time of 15 seconds. They were then placed in a 2% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours at 37°C. Samples were sectioned longitudinally and evaluated for microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margin under a stereomicroscope at 20× magnification. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the mean leakage scores. Restorations with gingival margins in enamel showed significantly less microleakage. Significant reduction in microleakage was observed in groups restored with P90 composite than those restored with Z350 XT. No improvement in microleakage was observed with the use of fiber inserts (p>0.05).

Arrest of non-cavitated dentinal occlusal caries by sealing pits and fissures: a 36-month, randomised controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the progression of sealed non-cavitated dentinal occlusal caries in a randomised controlled clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty teeth with non-cavitated dentinal occlusal caries were selected in patients with a high risk for caries. Patients were randomly divided into two groups so that each group included 30 teeth. Patients in the experiment group were given oral hygiene instructions and a fissure sealant. Patients in the control group were given oral hygiene instructions only. Caries progression and sealant loss were monitored over a period of 36 months by clinical and radiographic examinations.

RESULTS

Clinical and radiographic progression of caries was significantly more frequent in the control group than in the experiment group. Three teeth lost their sealant and showed caries progression, but this was apparent only at the 12-month follow-up. At the 24- and 36-month recall appointments, neither sealant loss nor caries progression were observed.

CONCLUSION

The pit and fissure sealant utilised in this study was shown to be effective in arresting carious lesions at 36 months.