The influence of a liner on deep bulk-fill restorations: Randomized clinical trial

Flowable bulk-fill versus layering restorative material on Class II restorations: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the clinical performance of Class II restorations made with flowable bulk-fill base versus conventional layering ORMOCER-based restorative material in a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

Thirty patients received two class II restorations (n = 60) performed with different strategies. All preparations received the application of the universal self-etching adhesive system according to the manufacturer's recommendation, followed by the placement of a sectional matrix, wooden wedge, and separation ring. The first restoration was performed using 4 mm of flowable bulk-fill material covered by 2 mm of conventional viscosity restorative material (Bulk-fill technique). The second restoration was performed only with the conventional viscosity material, with a maximum of 2 mm thick increments, up to fill the cavity (Layering technique). After occlusal adjustment, the same polishing system was used for all restorations. Evaluations using the FDI criteria were conducted after 7 days, 12, and 24 months. Data were analyzed with the Fisher's Exact test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

From 30 participants, 24 attended the 24-month recall, and 48 restorations were evaluated. All restorations received acceptable overall scores for esthetic and biological properties after this period, while only 6.66 % of the restorations exhibited unacceptable overall scores for the functional properties in both groups. No significant differences between the tested restorative materials and techniques were found for each FDI criterion assessed. The success rate after 2 years was 93.33 % for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both restorative materials exhibited good clinical performance for the parameters analyzed with no differences between them after 24-month follow-up.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Flowable bulk-fill ORMOCER-based material is a suitable alternative for direct Class II restorations, providing good clinical outcomes and simplifying the restorative procedure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

RBR-6mvp9w.

Clinical performance of preheating thermoviscous composite resin for non-carious cervical lesions restoration: A 24-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This 24-month, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the retention rates of a preheated thermoviscous composite resin (PHT) compared to a non-heated composite resin (NHT) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS

A total of 120 restorations were restored on NCCLs using a preheated (VisCalor bulk, Voco GmbH) and a non-heated (Admira Fusion, Voco GmbH) composite resins with 60 restorations per group. A universal adhesive in the selective enamel conditioning was applied. In the PHT group, composite was heated at 68 °C for using a bench heater. In the NHT group, no heating was employed. Both restorative materials were dispensed into caps and inserted into the NCCLs. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and after 24 months of clinical service using the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier estimation analysis for retention/fracture rate and Chi-square test for the other FDI parameters (α=0.05).

RESULTS

After 24 months 108 restorations were assessed. Seven restorations were lost (two for PHT group and five for NHT group), and the retention rates (95 % confidence interval [CI]) were 96.7 % (81.5-99.9) for PHT group and 90.8 % (81.1-96.0) for NHT group, with no statistical differences between them (p > 0.05). The hazard ratio (95 % CI) was 0.52 (0.27 to 1.01), with no significant difference within groups. In terms of all other FDI parameters that were assessed, all restorations were deemed clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Both composites showed high rates of retention rates after 24 months.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The clinical performance of the new preheated thermoviscous was found to be as good as the non-heated composite after 24-month of clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions.

REGISTRATION OF CLINICAL TRIALS

RBR-6d6gxxz.

3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials

To evaluate the impact of using ion-releasing liners on the 3-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after selective caries excavation with polymer burs. 20 patients were enrolled in this trial. Each patient had two deep carious lesions, one on each side of the mouth. After selective caries removal using polymer bur (PolyBur P1, Komet, Brasseler GmbH Co. KG, Lemgo, Germany), cavities were lined with bioactive ionic resin composite (Activa Bioactive Base/Liner, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). All cavities were then restored with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA). All the tested materials were placed according to the manufacturers' instructions. Clinical evaluation was accomplished using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria at baseline and after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. Data were analyzed using Mann-whitney U and Friedman tests (p < 0.05). The success rates were 100% for all resin composite restorations either lined with ion-releasing resin composite or resin-modified glass ionomer liner. Mann-whitney U test revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between both ion-releasing lining material groups for all criteria during the follow-up periods (p > 0.05). Resin composite restorations showed acceptable clinical performance over 3 years either lined with bioactive ionic or resin-modified glass ionomer liners after selective caries excavation preserving pulp vitality. After the 3-year follow-up period, Activa Bioactive and Riva Light Cure liners were clinically effective and they exhibited with the overlying composite restorations successful clinical performance.Trial registration number: NCT05470959. Date of registration: 22/7/2022. Retrospectively registered.

Effect of different restorative systems and aging on marginal adaptation of resin composites to deep proximal margins

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the marginal integrity of different restorative systems bonded to proximal gingival dentin, and determine the consistency level of the results obtained by two in vitro methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty molars received occluso-mesial preparations with dentin/cementum gingival margins. They were divided into three groups and restored using different restorative systems with light-cured (Adhese Universal), self-cured (Palfique universal bond), and dual-cured (Futurabond U) adhesives. The restoration/gingival dentin interfaces were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and evaluated based on the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. After 10,000 thermal cycles, the marginal integrity was re-evaluated. Marginal integrity was evaluated by the percentage of continuous margin (% CM) at ×200 for SEM and as the frequency of each score within the FDI ranking.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the restorative systems immediately, however, the system with the light-cured adhesive had the lowest marginal integrity after aging. All tested restorative systems were adversely affected by aging. A moderate inverse correlation was identified between evaluation techniques.

CONCLUSION

The tested restorative systems utilizing self-cured and dual-cured adhesives may be preferable for achieving optimal marginal integrity when bonding to deep proximal margins, compared to the tested system with light-cured adhesive.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

When performing deep margin elevation, it is important to consider the adhesive system being used.

Color Match of a Universal-shade Composite Resin for Restoration of Non-carious Cervical Lesions: An Equivalence Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The objective of this double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the color match of a single-shade composite resin Admira Fusion X-tra in comparison with a multi-shade composite resin Admira Fusion in non-carious cervical lesion restorations (NCCLs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred and twenty restorations were performed on NCCLs with two restorative materials (n=60). After prophylaxis, the teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, and one universal adhesive was applied in the selective enamel etching strategy. For both groups, the restorations were inserted incrementally and light-cured. The values of the coordinates L*, a*, and b* in the cervical third before vs after the restorations and cervical vs middle third after the restorations were evaluated using a digital spectrophotometer after the coordinate values were used to calculate the CIEDE (ΔE00). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 7 days of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test for all parameters. Color change was analyzed by Student t-test for paired samples (α=0.05).

RESULTS

All restorations were evaluated after 7 days. Regarding the color measurement, no significant difference was observed when Admira Fusion was compared to Admira Fusion X-tra for any of the comparisons performed (p>0.05). However, the values of ΔE00 in the cervical third before vs after the restorations were higher when compared with ΔE00 observed when the cervical vs middle third after restorations were compared. All restorations received the score "clinically very good" after 7 days for all outcomes, including the subjective color match, when evaluated for FDI criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-shade composite resin used achieves the same color match when compared to a multi-shade composite resin after 7 days in NCCLs.

Does the liner material influence pulpal vitality in deep carious cavities submitted to selective caries removal? A network meta-analysis review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the restorative material in direct contact with the dentin influences pulp vitality in primary and permanent teeth with deep carious lesions restored after selective caries removal (SCR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic searches of databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science were performed for primary and permanent teeth. Inclusion criteria were applied for title and abstract reading of databases search results. After full texts review of included studies, those that did not meet exclusion criteria were excluded from meta-analysis.

RESULTS

For meta-analysis, 2 studies were included for permanent teeth and 6 for primary teeth. The failure events reported were meta-analyzed using two statistical methods: standard pairwise meta-analysis (SPMA) and network meta-analysis (NMA). The SPMA identified similar failure occurrence of restorations performed with calcium hydroxide (CH) and other liner materials (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41, 1.74; p = 0.64), no significant difference between the use of alternative liners or CH regardless deciduous or permanent teeth (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36, 1.71; p = 0.55) and similar risk of failing at different follow-ups for all liner materials tested (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.35, 1.70; p = 0.52). Probabilistic analysis indicated GIC as liner material with the highest probability of clinical success (SUCRA = 72.76%), and CH ranked as the worst liner material (SUCRA = 21.81%).

CONCLUSION

Pulpal vitality was not affected by material used as liner after selective caries removal in deep carious cavities.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Current clinical evidence supports the weak recommendation to not use calcium hydroxide as liner after SCR.

Evidence-based fact checking for selective procedures in restorative dentistry

OBJECTIVES

Similar to other dental specialties, there are many clinical procedures in restorative dentistry that may or may not be supported by good evidence. Thus, the effectiveness of these procedures is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to reduce this knowledge gap by critically inspecting selective procedures in restorative dentistry and exploring if these well-established or widely advocated treatment modalities are necessary for improving treatment outcomes based on the best available evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify research on selective procedures while focusing on clinical trials and systematic reviews. Due to their practical relevance in the decision-making process, cost-effectiveness analyses were also included.

RESULTS

Mixed results were identified regarding the included interventions. Some procedures had adequate evidence supporting them while others were mostly based on beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

A critical review of the available literature indicates that some common restorative procedures lack adequate support from high-quality research evidence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper attempts to highlight the need to critically examine the scientific validity of traditional knowledge and techniques through the context of current research evidence. This will not only help generate consensus between educators, clinicians, and researchers regarding restorative procedures but will also lead to improved patient care and outcomes.

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing indirect versus direct composite restorations: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the clinical performance of large indirect restorations (IRs) versus direct restorations (DRs) in posterior teeth.

METHODS

Thirty subjects received two class II restorations (n = 60), one fabricated from a precured composite block (Grandio Blocs, VOCO) for the indirect technique (IT) and the other with light-cured composite (GrandioSO, VOCO) for the direct technique (DT). For IT, the restoration was created using the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturer (CAD/CAM) system. For DT, the material was applied light-cured by using a layering technique. All restorations were evaluated by using the World Dental Federation criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-three subjects attended the 2-year recall, and 46 restorations were evaluated. No significant differences were detected between the techniques for most parameters analyzed (p > 0.05). For "color match" at 7 days and 6 months, better results were observed for the DT. In relation to the overall scores, all restorations were esthetically acceptable after 2 years, while 93.3% of DT and 90% of IT showed acceptable function. For biological scores, 96.67% of DRs and 100% of IRs was acceptable after 24 months. Considering all properties, the success rates were 93.3% for DRs and 90% for IRs.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2 years, both restorations presented similar and good clinical behavior for all the properties analyzed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Light-cured direct posterior composite restorations may perform similarly to indirect composite restorations made with precured CAD/CAM composite blocks up to 2 years.