Multi-Mode adhesives performance and success/retention rates in NCCLs restorations: randomised clinical trial one-year report

Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid (GH) restorative and a nano-ceramic composite resin (CR) in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of bruxist individuals in a 60-month randomized clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five bruxist candidates having NCCLs were recruited in this clinical study. The depth, height (cervico-incisal), width (mesio-distal), internal angles of the NCCLs, degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival index (GI) were measured. One hundred-and-forty-eight NCCLs were restored either with a GH restorative (Equia Forte Fil) or a CR (Ceram.X One Universal). Modified USPHS criteria was used to evaluate restorations after 1 week and 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact and Cochran Q tests were run for analysis. Survival rates of the restorations were compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

After 60 months, 97 restorations in 15 patients were examined. The recall rate was 60.0%. Retention rates were 73.5% for CR and 66.7% for GH. A total of 29 restorations were lost (13CR (26.5%), 16GH (33.3%)). There was not a significant difference between tested restoratives in retention (p = 0.464), marginal adaptation (p = 0.856) and marginal discoloration (p = 0.273). There was no relationship between internal angle, depth, height or width and retention of the GH or CR restorations (p > 0.05). The increase in retention loss and marginal discoloration of both restorations over time were significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity or secondary caries were not detected after 60 months.

CONCLUSION

GH and nano-ceramic CR showed similar clinical performances in NCCLs after 60 months in patients with bruxism.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

After 60 months, CR and GH materials showed clinically acceptable performances in restoration of NCCLs in patients with bruxism.

Various ways of pre-heating a bulk-fill thermoviscous composite in restoration in non-carious cervical lesions: 12-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate through a randomized clinical trial the best method to preheat a composite resin, if using a Caps dispenser device associated with Caps Warmer (CD) or with a VisCalor Caps dispenser/warmer (VD) for restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty restorations were distributed to two groups (n = 60) according to the pre-heating way of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite resin. For the CD group, pre-heating was carried at 68 °C using a heating bench for 3 min. For the VD group, pre-heating was performed at 68 °C using a heating gun for 30 s. After that, pre-heated bulk-fill composites were directly inserted in the NCCLs. The total working time was recorded. The restorations were evaluated after 6 and 12 months of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test for unpaired samples for working time, and the Chi-square test for restoration clinical performance (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Working time was shorter for VD with a statistically significant difference compared to CD (p = 0.01). Few restorations were lost or fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (p > 0.05). The retention rates were 96.7% (CI 95 %: 88.6-99.1%) for CD and 98.3% (CI 95 %: 91.1-99.7%) for VD. The other FDI parameters were considered clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The different pre-heating ways did not influence the clinical performance of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite restorations in NCCLs after 12 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Regardless of the bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin pre-heating ways, the restorations are clinically acceptable after 12 months.

Bonding Protocols to Reverse the Bond Strength of a Universal Adhesive to Hemostatic Agent-contaminated Dentin

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of different bonding protocols on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of a universal adhesive to dentin contaminated with a hemostatic agent.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ninety-five extracted premolars were used in this study. For the μTBS test, 80 teeth were cut to expose mid-coronal dentin and randomly divided into two groups (uncontaminated dentin and hemostatic agent-contaminated dentin). Each group was further divided into five subgroups (n=8/group): 1) SE: no additional treatment, 2) ER: etching with 32% phosphoric acid, 3) CHX: rinsing with 0.2% chlorhexidine, 4) EDTA: rinsing with 17% EDTA, and 5) T40: application of universal adhesive for 40 seconds. A universal adhesive was applied followed by resin composite build-up. μTBS test was performed after 24 hours of water storage. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated followed by the Duncan testing (α=0.05). The failure mode was analyzed using light microscopy. Additional teeth were prepared for energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis (n=1/group) and resin-dentin interface observation (n=2/group) using scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

Adverse effects of hemostatic agent contamination on the bonding performance of a universal adhesive was found in the SE, CHX, and T40 groups (p<0.05). Fewer and shorter resin tags were observed in the SE, CHX, and T40 groups. A higher percentage of adhesive failure and mixed failure was found in contaminated dentin. All bonding protocols revealed lower amounts of Al and Cl after dentin contamination, except for the SE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemostatic agent contamination adversely affected dentin bond strength. However, this bond strength could be reversed using the etch-and-rinse technique or rinsing with EDTA prior to adhesive application.

Efficacy of adhesive strategies for restorative dentistry: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials over 12 months of follow-up

PURPOSE

The efficacy of etch-and-rinse, selective enamel-etching, and self-etching protocols for universal adhesives in follow-ups of over 12 months was compared in a network meta-analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1998 to 2022 that compared marginal staining, marginal adaptation, retention and fractures, post-operative sensitivity, or recurrence of caries that took place over 12-months post-restoration were selected. A network meta-analysis determined the performance of each adhesive protocol.

RESULTS

After screening 981 articles, 16 RCTs were subjected to data extraction. Of which, 674 patients with 2816 restorations, were included in the network meta-analysis. The pooled risk of marginal discoloration following self-etching was significantly higher than that following etch-and-rinse at over 12, 24, and 36 months, which was time-dependent. The pooled risks of unfavorable marginal adaptation and unfavorable retention and fractures following self-etching were also significantly higher than that following etch-and-rinse, with the rates of unfavorable retention and fractures in non-carious cervical lesions increasing in a time-dependent manner. The pooled risks of marginal discoloration, unfavorable marginal adaptation, retention and fractures were similar between etch-and-rinse and selective enamel-etching protocols. Post-operative hypersensitivity and recurrence of caries were not significantly different among etch-and-rinse, selective enamel-etching, and self-etching protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

In follow-ups over 12 months, esthetic and functional outcomes of restorations completed with an etch-and-rinse adhesive protocol were superior to the ones achieved with a self-etching strategy without selective enamel-etching. Selective enamel etching is recommended for self-etching systems. Biological responses were similar for all three adhesive strategies.

Universal Adhesives and Adhesion Modes in Non-Carious Cervical Restorations: 2-Year Randomised Clinical Trial

This prospective, double-blind, six-arm parallel randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the performance of two universal adhesives (UAs) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), using the FDI criteria, and analysed if participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced the outcome. Thirty-eight 18- to 65-year-old participants were seeking routine dental care at a university clinic. At baseline, 210 NCCLs were randomly allocated to six groups (35 restorations’ each). The UAs tested were FuturabondU (FBU) and AdheseUniversal (ADU) applied in either etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) modes. FuturabondDC (FBDC) in SE and in SE with selective enamel etching (SE-EE) modes were controls. NCCLs were restored with AdmiraFusion. The analysis included nonparametric tests, Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (α = 0.05). At 2-years, of 191 restorations, ten were missed due to retention loss (all groups, p > 0.05). FBDC (p = 0.037) and FBU (p = 0.041) performed worse than ADU in SE mode. FBDC and FBU also showed worse functional success rate (p = 0.012, p = 0.007, respectively) and cumulative retention rates (p = 0.022, p = 0.012, respectively) than ADU. Some participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced (p < 0.05) the outcomes. FBU did not perform as well as ADU, especially in SE mode and due to functional properties. Participants’ age and NCCLs’ degree of dentin sclerosis and internal shape angle influenced FBU performance.

Fatigue behavior and stress distribution of molars restored with MOD inlays with and without deep margin elevation

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effect of deep margin elevation (DME) and restorative materials (leucite-reinforced glass-ceramics [C] vs. indirect resin composite [R]) on the fatigue behavior and stress distribution of maxillary molars with 2-mm deep proximal margins restored with MOD inlay.

METHODS

Fifty-two extracted human third molars were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 13): C; DME + C; R; and DME + R. Inlays were fabricated in CAD-CAM and bonded to all teeth. The fatigue behavior was assessed with the stepwise stress test (10,000 cycles/step; step = 50 N; 20 Hz; initial load = 200 N). Fatigue failure loads and the number of cycles were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05) and Kaplan-Meier survival plots. The stress distribution was assessed with finite element analysis. The models were considered isotropic, linear, and homogeneous, and presented bonded contacts. A tripod axial load (400 N) was applied to the occlusal surface. The stress distribution was analyzed with the maximum principal stress criterion.

RESULTS

For fatigue, there was no difference for DME factor (p > 0.05). For the material factor, the load and number of cycles for failure were statistically higher in the R groups (p < 0.05). The finite element analysis showed that resin composite inlays concentrated more stress in the tooth structure, while ceramic inlays concentrated more stress in the restoration. Non-reparable failures were more frequent in the resin composite inlays groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DME was not negative for fatigue and biomechanical behaviors. Resin composite inlays were more resistant to the fatigue test, although the failure mode was more aggressive.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

DME does not impair mechanical behavior. Resin composite inlays failed at higher loads but with a more aggressive failure mode.

A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives

Aim

To compare the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with a universal adhesive, one-step and two-step self-etch adhesives in class I and II posterior cavities.

Materials and methods

In this in vivo study, 46 volunteers presenting with at least three carious lesions were included. Each participant received the three restorative systems: universal adhesive/nanofilled composite (Scotchbond Universal/Filtek Z350 XT: SBU/FZXT), one-step self-etch adhesive/microhybrid composite (G-aenial bond/G-aenial Posterior: GB/GP) and the two-step self-etch adhesive/nanohybrid composite (OptiBond XTR/Herculite Ultra: OBX/HU). The adhesives were all placed in self-etch mode. In total, 138 restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6,12 and 36 months using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, Friedman and Wilcoxon non-parametric tests (p < .05). Ninety-one restorations were evaluated at 36 months.

Results

Seven restorations, three SBU/FZXT, three GB/GP and one OBX/HU failed during this study. The reasons for failure were marginal fracture and secondary caries. SBU/FZXT restorations showed significant marginal deterioration in all parameters. Overall success rates were: 93.5% (SBU/FZXT), 96.6% (GB/GP) and 96.8% (OBX/HU).

Conclusions

After three years, the three restorative systems have comparable clinical effectiveness and success rates, except for the marginal integrity, that was suboptimal for both the SBU/FZXT and GB/GP restorations in comparison to the OBX/HU restorations.