Six-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of two glass ionomer cements in class II cavities

Five-year clinical follow-up of bulk-fill restorative materials in class II restorations

This study evaluates the 5-year clinical performance of Class II restorations performed with different bulk-fill restorative materials. In the study, Class II restorations performed with Tetric Bulk-Fill (TBF), Filtek Bulk-Fill (FBF), and Equia Forte Fil (EF) were evaluated. One hundred-nineteen restorations were included in the study. Restorations were assessed during the 6th month, 1st, 2nd, and 5th year. Cochran Q, Pearson chi-square, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests were used for statistical analysis. In the 5th year, significant differences were observed in terms of retention, color match, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, and anatomical form in all materials. There was a significant difference between EF and bulk-fill composites only in terms of retention and anatomical form. EF was significantly less successful than bulk-fill composites with regard to retention and anatomical form, but bulk-fill composites have shown similar clinical performance. EF cannot be an alternative to bulk-fill composites for Class II restorations.

Evaluation of setting kinetics, mechanical strength, ion release, and cytotoxicity of high-strength glass ionomer cement contained elastomeric micelles

BACKGROUND

Low mechanical properties are the main limitation of glass ionomer cements (GICs). The incorporation of elastomeric micelles is expected to enhance the strength of GICs without detrimentally affecting their physical properties and biocompatibility. This study compared the chemical and mechanical properties, as well as the cytotoxicity, of elastomeric micelles-containing glass ionomer cement (DeltaFil, DT) with commonly used materials, including EQUIA Forte Fil (EF), Fuji IX GP Extra (F9), and Ketac Molar (KT).

METHOD

Powder particles of GICs were examined with SEM-EDX. Setting kinetics were assessed using ATR-FTIR. Biaxial flexural strength/modulus and Vickers surface microhardness were measured after immersion in water for 24 h and 4 weeks. The release of F, Al, Sr, and P in water over 8 weeks was analyzed using a fluoride-specific electrode and ICP-OES. The toxicity of the material extract on mouse fibroblasts was also evaluated.

RESULTS

High fluoride levels in the powder were detected with EF and F9. DT demonstrated an initial delay followed by a faster acid reaction compared to other cements, suggesting an improved snap set. DT also exhibited superior flexural strength than other materials at both 24 h and 4 weeks but lower surface microhardness (p < 0.05). EF and F9 showed higher release of F, Al, and P than DT and KT. There was no statistically significant difference in fibroblast viability among the tested materials (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Elastomeric micelles-containing glass ionomer cement (DT) exhibited satisfactory mechanical properties and cytocompatibility compared with other materials. DT could, therefore, potentially be considered an alternative high-strength GIC for load-bearing restorations.

In-vitro evaluation of fracture resistance of teeth restored with different high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials and bulk-fill composite resins

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of restorations made with a glass-hybrid restorative system (GHRS), a high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative material (HVGIC), a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin (HVB), a flowable bulk-fill composite resin (FB), and a nanohybrid composite resin (NH), which are commonly preferred in clinical applications on the fracture resistance of teeth in-vitro.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred intact human premolar teeth were included in the study. The teeth were randomly divided into ten groups (n = 10). No treatment was applied to the teeth in Control group. Class II cavities were prepared on the mesial surfaces of the remaining ninety teeth in other groups. For restoration of the teeth, a GHRS, a HVGIC, a HVB, a FB, and a NH were used. Additionally, in four groups, teeth were restored using NH, GHRS, and HVGIC with open and closed-sandwich techniques. After 24 h, fracture resistance testing was performed. One-way ANOVA and Tukey HDS tests were used for statistical analysis of the data.

RESULTS

The fracture resistance values of Control group were statistically significantly higher than those of GHRS, HVGIC, FB, NH, HVGIC-CS, GHRS-OS, and HVGIC-OS groups(p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference observed between the fracture resistance values of Control, HVB, and GHRS-CS groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that the use of HVB and the application of GHRS with a closed-sandwich technique may have a positive effect on the fracture resistance of teeth in the restoration of wide Class II cavities.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of high-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin and the application of glass-hybrid restorative system with the closed-sandwich technique in the restoration of teeth with wide Class II cavities could increase the fracture resistance of the teeth.

Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative system and a nano-hybrid resin composite in moderate to large two-surface class II cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out by dental schools in Zagreb, Croatia; Izmir, Turkey; Belgrade, Serbia; and Milan, Italy. A total of 180 patients requiring two class-II two-surface restorations in the molars of the same jaw were recruited. The teeth were randomly restored with either a nano-hybrid resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent) or a glass-hybrid material (EQUIA Forte, GC). During the 5-year follow-up, two calibrated evaluators at each centre scored the restorations annually using the FDI-2 scoring system. The survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using non-parametric matched pair tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the overall survival and success rates of the two types of restorations (p>0.05). The success rates (FDI-2 scores 1-3) for EQUIA Forte were 81.9% (average annual failure rate: 3.9%) and 90.7% for Tetric EvoCeram (average annual failure rate: 1.9%). The survival rates (FDI-2 scores 1-4) for EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram were 94.5% and 94.4%, respectively, with an average annual failure rate of 1.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of success and survival rates, both the glass-hybrid restorative system and the nano-hybrid resin composite have been shown to perform satisfactorily.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results of this study indicate that EQUIA Forte can be one of the therapeutic options for moderate to large two-surface class II restorations of posterior teeth.

Retrospective clinical study on the performance and aesthetic outcome of pressed lithium disilicate restorations in posterior teeth up to 8.3 years

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of cumulative survival and complication rate of monolithic lithium disilicate inlays and partial crowns performed by supervised undergraduate students up to 8.3 years of clinical service.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective clinical study 143 lithium disilicate posterior restorations (IPS e.max Press) were examined according to the FDI criteria. A standardised questionnaire was used to determine patient satisfaction. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated by dentists and dental technicians using intraoral photographs. Data were descriptively analysed. Cumulative survival and success rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimation.

RESULTS

The cumulative survival rate of lithium disilicate restorations was 97.5% after a mean service time of 5.9 years and 95.0% after 8.3 years. The cumulative success rate decreased from 94.4% after 5.9 years to 30.7% after 8.3 years. Repairs were required for 7 restorations (4.9%), and 5 (3.5%) were classified as failures. The results of the questionnaire indicate a high level of patient satisfaction. The subjective aesthetics were assessed more critically by dental technicians compared to dentists.

CONCLUSION

Lithium disilicate posterior restorations survived successfully up to 8.3 years when carried out by undergraduate students.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Pressed lithium disilicate glass ceramic inlays and partial crowns are reliable treatment options in posterior teeth.

Explore the most recent advancements in the domain of self-healing intelligent composites specifically designed for use in dentistry

Dental composites are commonly utilized in dental treatments because they have the ability to preserve the natural appearance of teeth, are minimally invasive and conservative, and enhance the overall physical and mechanical attributes. Dental composites can experience damage, like small cracks, due to factors like temperature changes and physical strain, which can reduce their effectiveness. Detecting these tiny cracks in dental composites can be quite challenging, and in certain situations, it may even be impossible. In addition, it is not possible to repair these damages in situ by using conventional materials and methods. Therefore, the self-healing ability in dental composites is necessary. In recent years, the spontaneous repair of damages such as micro-cracking in dental composite materials has been developed without any type of human intervention and the replacement of new components. The most widely used approach to create self-healing dental composites involves encapsulating a healing agent within polymer shells and dispersing these microcapsules within the acrylate matrix of the dental composite. To assess the self-healing abilities of these composites, researchers can examine changes in their fracture toughness before and after the healing process using a test called the Single Edge V-notch beam test. In the present article we reviewed the latest findings in the field of self-healing intelligent composites for application in dentistry, and also in the present study, the studies on self-healing smart dental composites will be reviewed.

Long term clinical performance of 'open sandwich' and 'total-etch' Class II composite resin restorations showing proximal deterioration of glass-ionomer cement

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical performance of resin composite posterior Class-II restorations placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive or open sandwich technique using glass-ionomer cement.

METHODS

Data on Class II restorations placed by one dentist between 1990 and 2016 were collected from patient files, including caries risk, tooth related variables, applied materials and dates of last check-up visit and restoration placement. Open sandwich restorations were placed before 2001, while after 2001, a total-etch technique using etch-and-rinse 3-step adhesive was used when placing a Class II composite restoration. For statistical analysis, Kaplan-Meier statistics and a multilevel Cox-Regression was conducted (p < 0.05). Annual Failures Rates (AFR) were calculated.

RESULTS

675 Class II restorations were placed in 91 patients, 491 total-etch restorations (observation time 2-18 y), and 184 open sandwich restorations (observation time 19-29 y) showing AFRs at 15 years as 2.9 % for total-etch and 9.7 % for open sandwich restorations. Secondary caries as failure was equally distributed among the 2 groups and 27 % of the failures in the open sandwich group were due to proximal deterioration of glass-ionomer cement. The Cox-regression showed a significant higher risk for failure for the open sandwich technique compared to total-etch class-II composite restorations (HR = 2.9; p < 0.001).

SIGNIFICANCE

Application of glass-ionomer cement using the open sandwich technique cannot be recommended for class-II restorations as being more complex and showing poorer clinical performance.

Biological and Physicochemical Characterization of Self-Adhesive Protective Coating Dental Restorative Material after Incorporation of Antibacterial Nanoparticles

This study evaluated the physicochemical and antibacterial properties of EQUIATM coat liquid (E) after incorporation of zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles. ZnO and TiO2 (1 wt.% and 2 wt.%) were dispersed in EQUIA coat. Principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis were performed to visualize systemic variation. Antibacterial activity was evaluated by colony-forming units and crystal violet staining using Streptococcusmutans and Lactobacillusacidophilus after 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h, and the microstructure was studied by scanning electron microscopy. The weight change was analyzed at 1 and 21 days. The PCA for TiO2- and ZnO-based groups showed 100% variance at all spectral ranges at 600−800/cm and 800−1200/cm, whereas 1200−1800/cm and 2700−3800/cm spectral regions demonstrated 99% variance. The absorbance values were significant (p < 0.05) for both nanoparticles-based adhesives, and the specimens with 2 wt.% ZnO showed the maximum response by minimum bacterial attachment, and the control group showed the least response by maximum attachment. The weight change percentage was reduced after the incorporation of antibacterial nanoparticles. It is suggested that EQUIATM coat containing nanoparticles exhibits promising results, and it may be recommended to clinically use as an improved coating material.

Long-Term Water Balance Evaluation in Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials

The complex role of water in glass ionomer cement (polyalkenoate) dental restorative materials has been studied, but much of the present understanding concerning water balance within these materials is based on very early studies and short-term experiments. This study evaluated the nature of the water species of six conventional and four resin modified glass ionomer restorative materials over 3 years using thermogravimetric analysis techniques. Materials were prepared, placed in crucibles, and stored in physiologic phosphate buffered saline and evaluated at 24 h, 1 week, and then at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months. All materials demonstrated a significant increase in unbound water percentage content but except for the resin modified materials, the enthalpy required to remove the unbound water species did not significantly change over 36 months. Also, bound water content percentage and removal enthalpy was established at 24 h, as no significant increase was noted in both bound water content and removal enthalpy over the course of this evaluation. This study suggests that unbound water species may increase with time and is loosely held except for the resin modified materials. Protective coatings placement and re-evaluation are prudent to prevent unbound water loss.

Consensus on glass-ionomer cement thresholds for restorative indications

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to present the results of a consensus meeting on the threshold property requirements for the clinical use of conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) for restorative indications.

METHODS

Twenty-one experts on GICs evaluated the results of tests on mechanical and optical properties of 18 different brands of restorative GICs: Bioglass R [B], Chemfil Rock [CR], Equia Forte [EF], Gold Label 2 [GL2], Gold Label 9 [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement II [GI], Ionglass [IG], Ion Z [IZ], Ionomaster [IM], Ionofil Plus [IP], Ionostar Plus [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix [KM], Magic Glass [MG], Maxxion R [MA], Riva Self Cure [R], Vidrion R [V], Vitro Fil [VF] and Vitro Molar [VM]. All experiments were carried out by a team of researchers from Brazil and England following strict protocols, under the same laboratory conditions throughout, and maintaining data integrity.

RESULTS

There was consensus on: determining as primary properties of the material: compressive strength, microhardness, acid erosion and fluoride release, and as secondary properties: contrast ratio and translucency parameter, in order to rank the materials. Seven brands were below the thresholds for restorative indications: IZ, IM, IG, MA, VF, B and MG.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the primary properties adopted as being essential for restorative indications, the conventional restorative GICs that met the thresholds and could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials were: EF, GI, GL9, KM, IP, GL2, IS, CR, V, VM and R. A decision-making process to select the best GIC must also include results from clinical trials.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides a ranking of GICs that could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials based on their main properties.

Longevity of lithium disilicate indirect restorations in posterior teeth prepared by undergraduate students: A retrospective study up to 8.5 years

OBJECTIVES

To analyze retrospectively the clinical performance and survival of lithium disilicate inlays, partial crowns and crowns placed by undergraduate students.

METHODS

250 lithium disilicate posterior restorations (IPS™Emax Press) were evaluated. Mean service time was 6.6 years (79 months) with a maximum observation time of 8.5 years (102 months). Clinical performance was assessed using FDI Criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to display the distribution of the criteria. Success and survival of the restorations were calculated with the Kaplan Meier method. A Cox regression analysis was performed to detect influencing parameters for the survival or the success of the restorations.

RESULTS

Survival and success rates of lithium disilicate indirect restorations were calculated at 6.6 years with 96.3 % and 93.8 %, respectively. After 8.5 years the survival rate was calculated with 94 % and the success rate with 83.8 %. 10 out of 250 restorations (4%) failed, while the main reasons for failure were fracture of material, debonding/loss of restoration, endodontic complications as well as recurrence of caries. A Cox regression analysis failed to show a correlation between restoration failure and the experience level of the students, an existing root canal treatment, type of tooth, bruxism or the use of rubber dam.

CONCLUSIONS

Lithium disilicate indirect posterior restorations demonstrate a high success and survival rate after a mean service of 6.6 years when placed by undergraduate students with different levels of experience. Co-factors influencing the survival or success rate of these restorations could not be identified.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Lithium disilicate restorations show a good clinical performance up to 8.5 years when prepared by undergraduate students.

In vitro wear of (resin-coated) high-viscosity glass ionomer cements and glass hybrid restorative systems

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the volumetric abrasive wear of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (hvGIC; Equia Fil) and a glass hybrid restorative system (ghRS; Equia Forte), each being recommended as amalgam alternatives. Both materials were applied with or without their respective resinous coating, and were compared with a conventional GIC (Ketac Fil) and a hybrid composite resin (CR; G-ænial Posterior).

METHODS

78 standardized occlusal Class I cavities were restored with the various materials (n = 13 per group). Before and after chewing simulation (30,000 cycles at 40 N), each sample underwent optical scanning procedures (Omnicam). A comparison of the total wear using a fluorescence-aided identification technique (OraCheck) followed, and differences (α = 5%) between groups were compared by means of MANOVA.

RESULTS

Regarding the wear rates of hvGIC and ghRS, no differences could be observed (p > .050), and this was not affected by the resinous coating. All hvGIC and ghRS restorations showed significantly higher abrasive wear than CR (p < .001), while the conventional GIC displayed a significant underperformance compared with any other material (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Resinous coating of hvGIC or ghRS does not appear to exert an effective long-term protection against advanced abrasive wear. Compared to the conventional GIC showing a considerable substance loss, both hvGIC and ghRS materials revealed an improved abrasion resistance, but clearly failed to meet the excellent values of the CR.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Occlusal loading should be carefully considered when using hvGIC or ghRS as amalgam (or composite resin) alternatives for the restoration of posterior teeth.