Evaluation of the clinical performance of GIOMERs and comparison with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical evaluation of Giomer and self-etch adhesive compared with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive - Results at 8 years

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of Giomer and a self-etch adhesive system compared with a nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive system in Class I and Class II restorations.

METHOD

The study was designed to be double-blinded with intra-individual control. 48 patients with 54 pairs of cavities (class I or class II) were recruited. Each pair of restorations was placed with either BEAUTIFIL II (BF) and FL-BOND II (FL) or Filtek Z350 (Z350) and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SMP). Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline, 6-month, 18-month, 4-year and 8-year after placement according to modified USPHS criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log rank tests were performed (SPSS 20.0, IBM Corporation, US) to compare the survival probability of different restorations.A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was adopted to assess the performance of the materials. The McNemar test was used to show significant changes for all the evaluation criteria and difference between them.

RESULTS

At the eight-year recall, 32 patients with 67 restorations were present. There were twelve restorations in total recorded as failure due to loss of retention, restoration fracture, secondary caries, tooth fracture or endodontic treatment due to pulp necrosis. The survival probabilities and calculated annual failure rate(AFR) of BF and Z350 restorations at 8-year were 87.2 % vs 87.8 % and 1.6 % vs 1.5 % respectively with no significant difference (p > 0.05)between the two materials. Over the recall time range of eight years, decreased possibility of alpha rating was observed for retention, marginal adaptation, marginal staining and surface roughness for both materials (p < 0.05). Decreased possibility of alpha rating was observed for surface staining and secondary caries for Z350 (p < 0.05) and restoration fracture for BF (p < 0.05), respectively. Comparing the two restorative systems over eight years, no significant difference was seen for linear decline of the possibility of alpha rating for any of the criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Giomer material and the self-etch adhesive system had comparable clinical performance with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive system over the observation period of eight years.

Do bioactive materials show greater retention rates in restoring permanent teeth than non-bioactive materials? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To answer the following research question: does the clinical evaluation of restorations on permanent teeth with bioactive materials show greater retention rates than those with non-bioactive materials?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search strategy was used in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a minimum of 2-year follow-up and evaluating at least one bioactive material in permanent teeth were included. Risk of bias was detected according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias (RoB 2.0), and network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects Bayesian-mixed treatment comparison model.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included. The success of the restorations was assessed using modified USPHS system in 24 studies and the FDI criteria in 3 studies. Network meta-analysis revealed three networks based on restoration preparations. Resin composites were ranked with higher SUCRA values, indicating a greater likelihood of being the preferred treatment for class I, II, and III restorations. In class V, resin-modified glass ionomer cement was ranked with the highest value.

CONCLUSION

Bioactive restorative materials showed similar good clinical performance in terms of retention similarly to conventional resin composites.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The findings must be interpreted with caution because many RCT on restorative materials aim to verify the equivalence of new materials over the gold standard material rather than their superiority. The present systematic review also suggests that new RCT with longer follow-up periods are necessary.

Effects of in vitro erosion on surface texture, microhardness, and color stability of resin composite with S-PRG fillers

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of acid erosion on different physical properties of resin composite with S-PRG (surface pre-reacted glass) fillers, by conducting simulations of intrinsic and extrinsic sources.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cylindrical samples (Ø6 vs. 2 mm) of a conventional nanohybrid resin composite (Forma, Ultradent) and of a nanohybrid resin composite with S-PRG filler (Beautifil II, Shofu) were exposed to erosive cycling (5 days), based on (n=12) remineralizing solution (control); 0.3% citric acid (pH=2.6); or 0.01 M hydrochloric acid (pH=2). Roughness (Ra), microhardness (KHN), and color (CIEL*a*b*, CIEDE2000, and Vita scale (SGU)) factors were analyzed at the initial and final time points, and the general color changes (ΔE_ab, ΔE₀₀, ΔSGU) were calculated. Final images were obtained using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The data were evaluated by generalized models, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Dunn tests (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Regarding KHN, there was no difference between the groups or the time periods (p = 0.74). As for Ra, there was a significant increase in the Ra of both composites after cycling with hydrochloric acid, but only the resin composite with S-PRG filler showed a change in Ra after cycling with citric acid (p = 0.003). After cycling with citric and hydrochloric acid, the highest Ra values were found for the resin composite with S-PRG filler (p < 0.0001), corroborating the result of images (SEM) indicating loss of filler and porosities in this material. The resin composite with S-PRG filler showed higher ΔE_ab and ΔE₀₀, in addition to more negative ΔSGU values and lower L* values after exposure to both acids, compared to the control (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The acidic conditions altered the roughness and color stability of the materials tested, pointing out that the resin composite containing S-PRG filler showed greater degradation of its physical properties than the conventional resin composite.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Bioactive materials are relevant, considering that their properties interact with dental hard tissues; however, the S-PRG-based resin composite showed greater degradation under acidic conditions than the conventional resin composite.