A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on restorative treatments for caries lesions: A report from the American Dental Association

BACKGROUND

An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs together with the ADA Science and Research Institute's program for Clinical and Translational Research conducted a systematic review and developed recommendations for the treatment of moderate and advanced cavitated caries lesions in patients with vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors searched for systematic reviews comparing carious tissue removal (CTR) approaches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Trip Medical Database. The authors also conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing direct restorative materials in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel formulated 16 recommendations and good practice statements: 4 on CTR approaches specific to lesion depth and 12 on direct restorative materials specific to tooth location and surfaces involved. The panel conditionally recommended for the use of conservative CTR approaches, especially for advanced lesions. Although the panel conditionally recommended for the use of all direct restorative materials, they prioritized some materials over the use of others for certain clinical scenarios.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The evidence suggests that more conservative CTR approaches may decrease the risk of adverse effects. All included direct restorative materials may be effective in treating moderate and advanced caries lesions on vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs

BACKGROUND

The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.

TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.

Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study

This study evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of four different flowable composite materials used in Small Class I restorations in permanent molars. This double-blinded, clinical study analyzed 229 Small Class I restorations/103 children at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months with modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. The tested flowable materials were Voco Grandio Flow + Voco Solobond M, Vivadent Tetric EvoFlow + Vivadent Excite, Dentsply X-Flow + Dentsply Prime&Bond NT, and 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme XT Flow + 3M ESPE Scotchbond Universal. The retention and marginal adaptation rates were highest for Grandio Flow and X Flow materials after 36 months, resulting in the highest score of clinical acceptability at 95.3% and 97.6%, respectively. The Tetric EvoFlow and Filtek Supreme XT Flow had the same retention rate after 36 months at 88.1%. Statistical significance was found in Grandio flow material in postoperative sensitivity criteria (p = 0.021). Tetric EvoFlow showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01), color match (p = 0.004), and marginal adaptation (p = 0.042). Filtek Supreme showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01) and marginal adaptation (p < 0.001). The flowable composite materials showed excellent clinical efficacy after 36 months of their clinical usage. There was no difference among the tested flowable composite materials quality in Small Class I restorations over time.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth

BACKGROUND

Amalgam has been the traditional material for filling cavities in posterior teeth for the last 150 years and, due to its effectiveness and cost, amalgam is still the restorative material of choice in certain parts of the world. In recent times, however, there have been concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings), relating to the mercury release in the body and the environmental impact following its disposal. Resin composites have become an esthetic alternative to amalgam restorations and there has been a remarkable improvement of its mechanical properties to restore posterior teeth.There is need to review new evidence comparing the effectiveness of both restorations.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth, primarily on restoration failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 October 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 October 2013), and LILACs via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 22 October 2013). We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We contacted manufacturers of dental materials to obtain any unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing dental resin composites with dental amalgams in permanent posterior teeth. We excluded studies having a follow-up period of less than three years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 2205 retrieved references, we included seven trials (10 articles) in the systematic review. Two trials were parallel group studies involving 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations (921 children) in the analysis. The other five trials were split-mouth studies involving 1620 composite restorations and 570 amalgam restorations in an unclear number of children. Due to major problems with the reporting of the data for the five split-mouth trials, the primary analysis is based on the two parallel group trials. We judged all seven trials to be at high risk of bias and we analyzed 3265 composite restorations and 1935 amalgam restorations.The parallel group trials indicated that resin restorations had a significantly higher risk of failure than amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35, P value < 0.001 (fixed-effect model) (low-quality evidence)) and increased risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74, P value < 0.001 (low-quality evidence)) but no evidence of an increased risk of restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64, P value = 0.66 (moderate-quality evidence)). The results from the split-mouth trials were consistent with those of the parallel group trials.Adverse effects of dental restorations were reported in two trials. The outcomes considered were neurobehavioral function, renal function, psychosocial function, and physical development. The investigators found no difference in adverse effects between composite and amalgam restorations. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as none of the outcomes were reported in more than one trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence to suggest that resin composites lead to higher failure rates and risk of secondary caries than amalgam restorations. This review reinforces the benefit of amalgam restorations and the results are particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Though the review found insufficient evidence to support or refute any adverse effects amalgam may have on patients, new research is unlikely to change opinion on its safety and due to the decision for a global phase-down of amalgam (Minamata Convention on Mercury) general opinion on its safety is unlikely to change.

Evaluation of Dental Restorations: A Comparative Study Between Clinical and Digital Photographic Assessments

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a direct clinical evaluation method with an indirect digital photographic method in assessing the quality of dental restorations. Seven parameters (color, occlusal marginal adaptation, anatomy form, roughness, occlusal marginal stain, luster, and secondary caries) were assessed in 89 Class I and Class II restorations from 36 adults using the modified US Public Health Service/Ryge criteria. Standardized photographs of the same restorations were digitally processed by Adobe Photoshop software, separated into the following four groups and assessed by two calibrated examiners: Group A: The original photograph displayed at 100%, without modifications (IMG100); Group B: Formed by images enlarged at 150% (IMG150); Group C: Formed by digital photographs displayed at 100% (mIMG100), with digital modifications (levels adjustment, shadow and highlight correction, color balance, unsharp Mask); and Group D: Formed by enlarged photographs displayed at 150% with modifications (mIMG150), with the same adjustments made to Group C. Photographs were assessed on a calibrated screen (Macbook) by two calibrated clinicians, and the results were statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon tests (SSPS 11.5) at 95% CI. Results: The photographic method produced higher reliability levels than the direct clinical method in all parameters. The evaluation of digital images is more consistent with clinical assessment when restorations present some moderate defect (Bravo) and less consistent when restorations are clinically classified as either satisfactory (Alpha) or in cases of severe defects (Charlie). Conclusion: The digital photographic method is a useful tool for assessing the quality of dental restorations, providing information that goes unnoticed with the visual-tactile clinical examination method. Additionally, when analyzing restorations using the Ryge modified criteria, the digital photographic method reveals a significant increase of defects compared to those clinically observed with the naked eye. Photography by itself, without the need for enlargement or correction, provides more information than clinical examination and can lead to unnecessary overtreatment.

Two-Year Clinical Performance of a Low-Shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the two-year clinical performance of three restorative systems in posterior restorations, which included a low-shrinkage composite and both etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive strategies.

Materials and Methods

After signing an informed consent, 25 patients received three Class I (occlusal) or Class II restorations performed with one of three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System, Adper Scotchbond 1 XT (a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive) with Filtek Z250, and Adper Scotchbond SE (a two-step self-etch adhesive) with Filtek Z250. All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Two blind observers evaluated the restorations at three different moments (baseline; and after one and two years) according to the US Public Health Service modified criteria. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the behavior of the restorative systems, while Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were applied to analyze the intra-system data (p&lt;0.05).

Results

The three restorative systems showed a statistically similar clinical performance at two years. Intra-system comparisons between baseline and two years showed declining marginal adaptation scores in the restorations placed with all systems. In addition, marginal staining and surface roughness scores were lower after two years for the restorations placed with Adper Scotchbond SE + Filtek Z250.

Conclusions

Although the clinical performance of Filtek Silorane was considered acceptable after two years, no advantage of the silorane-based resin over the methacrylate-based composite was found. Teeth restored with Adper Scotchbond SE showed a tendency for marginal staining, which may compromise the final color of the restorations.

Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the one-year clinical performance of three restorative systems, which included a novel low-shrinkage composite and two bonding strategies.

Materials and Methods

Twenty-five patients received three Class I (occlusal) or Class II restorations performed with one of three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System (FS); Adper Scotchbond 1 XT, a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (XT); and Adper Scotchbond SE, a two-step self-etch adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (SE). All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent observers evaluated the restorations at baseline, after six months, and after one year, according to the United States Public Health System modified criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test were computed to compare the behavior of the restorative systems; Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze the intrasystem data (α=0.05).

Results

All restorations were evaluated at one year. FS and XT performed statistically similarly at one year, but marginal staining for SE was statistically worse. Intrasystem comparisons between baseline and one year also showed deterioration of marginal staining for SE, while a deterioration of the marginal adaptation was recorded for both SE and FS. XT was the only system for which there was no statistical change of the parameters measured in this study.

Conclusions

Both restorative systems using self-etch adhesives showed a tendency to degradation of marginal adaptation after one year of clinical use, compared to baseline values. Although the clinical performance of FS was deemed acceptable after one year, this study did not find any advantage of the silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite. The low-shrinkage associated with FS may not be a determinant factor for clinical success.

Two-year Clinical Evaluation of IPS Empress II Ceramic Onlays/Inlays

The two-year success rate of restorations reported in the current study demonstrates that IPS Empress II ceramics are clinically acceptable for onlay/inlay restorations on molars.

The effect of a leucite-containing ceramic filler on the abrasive wear of dental composites

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate abrasive wear of a dental composite based on a leucite-containing (KAlSi2O2 ceramic filler, and to compare it with the wear of a composite based on commonly used aluminum barium silicate glass filler.

METHODS

IPS Empress (Ivoclar-Vivadent) ingots were ball milled, passed through an 800 mesh (ASTM) sieve, and used as the leucite ceramic filler. Experimental composites were prepared by mixing the silane-treated fillers with the resin monomers. The resin consisted of 70 wt% Bis-GMA and 30 wt% TEGDMA containing camphorquinone and DMAEMA as the photoinitiator system. Glass-based composites were also prepared using silane-treated aluminum barium silicate glass fillers and the same resin system. TetricCeram, a commercially available dental composite, was used as control. Spherical specimens of the composites were then prepared and kept in water for 2 weeks to reach equilibrium with water. An abrasive wear test was performed using a device designed in our laboratory and weight loss of the specimens was measured as an abrasion parameter after each 50 h. SEMs were taken from worn and fractured surfaces. Degree-of-conversion of the composites was measured using FTIR spectroscopy. Vickers surface microhardness, flexural strength, and flexural modulus of the composites were also measured. The data were analyzed and compared using ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (significance level=0.05).

RESULTS

The results showed that there were significant differences among the abrasive wear of the composites (p<0.05). The ranking from least to most was as: leucite-based composite<TetricCeram<glass-based composite. The higher wear resistance of leucite-based composite could be related to its higher surface hardness.

SIGNIFICANCE

Using leucite-containing glass as an alternative for aluminum barium silicate glass fillers in dental composites generated a significant increase in the wear resistance of the resin composites which should be beneficial in the development of dental materials.

Edge strength of resin-composite margins

OBJECTIVES

Marginal integrity is a major clinical problem in restorative dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the applicability of an edge strength measurement device in an in vitro test to determine the force required to fracture flakes of material by a Vickers indentation at progressively increasing distances from an interface edge of bulk material.

METHODS

Five representative resin-composites were investigated. Fourteen disks of specimens (12mm diameter x 2.5mm thick) were prepared for each material. These were divided into seven sub-groups corresponding to different edge-distances (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and 1.0mm). An edge strength measurement device (CK10) (Engineering Systems, Nottingham, UK) was used. The mode of the failure of each specimen was examined under the integral microscope of the CK10.

RESULTS

The force (N)-to-fracture at a distance of 0.5mm from the edge was defined as the edge strength. The highest failure force (edge strength) was observed for Tetric Ceram (174.2N) and the lowest for Filtek Supreme (enamel) (87.0N). Correlations between the failure-forces to fracture materials with edge-distance were regression analyzed giving coefficients (r) ranging from 0.94 (p=0.02) to 0.99 (p=0.01). Two modes of failure were observed: chipping and--generally at greater distances--cracking.

SIGNIFICANCE

Edge strength is a definable and potentially useful parameter to characterize this aspect of clinically related behavior. A standardized distance of 0.5mm from the specimen's edge, when chipping failure prevails, is suitable and convenient as a reference point.

Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled Composite in Posterior Teeth: 12-month Results

Nanofilled resin composite showed excellent clinical performance, similar to microhybrid and packable composites after 12-months.

3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations

This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after 3 years. Eighty-four restorations were placed in 16 patients. The tested materials were: (i) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (ii) ALERT + Bond-1; (iii) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT; (iv) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and (v) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass-ionomer cement. Each adhesive system and composite resin was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according USPHS modified criteria. Fourteen patients attended the 3-year recall and 75 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon sign-ranked test for pair-wise comparison was used for data analysis (alpha = 0.05). The analysis was performed only for the baseline and for the 3-year period. Solitaire showed some fractures at marginal ridges in 25% of the cases. Solitaire and ALERT showed some concerns related to colour match (43 and 77%, respectively) and surface texture (86 and 77%, respectively). TPH Spectrum showed a great percentage of colour mismatch after 3 years, around 50%. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after 3 years, similar to the hybrid resin tested, TPH Spectrum. Solitaire did not fulfil the ADA acceptance criteria for restorative materials and, therefore, is not recommended for use in posterior restorations.

Can a single composite resin serve all purposes?

The consensus view less than a decade ago was that direct posterior composites should be restricted to small restorations, preferably in premolar teeth with little, if any, occlusal function. Major advances in adhesive systems, materials and restorative techniques have combined to allow us to question this view and our increased clinical evidence base makes it appropriate to reconsider this viewpoint.

Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique

PURPOSE

To report the 4-year clinical performance of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over a period of 1 year, 726 restorations (248 molars, 478 premolars; 260 Class I, 466 Class II; 540 replacements, 186 primary decay) were placed on conservative preparations, using the incremental placement technique in a clinical environment. Baseline data were collected, and the restorations were evaluated after 4 years. Z100 and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP) (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minnesota) were used as the restorative system. The criteria evaluated were color match, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, cavosurface marginal discoloration, axial contour, interproximal contact, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and tooth vitality.

RESULTS

At baseline, 24% of the teeth restored presented postoperative sensitivity; 86% of the sensitive teeth were from the replacement group. At 4 years, all teeth were vital to cold test. Eighteen restorations (2.5%) presented clinically detectable marginal fracture. The shade was acceptable in all restorations. Cavosurface marginal discoloration was observed in 47 restorations (6.5% bravo scores). Axial contour, interproximal contact, and marginal adaptation received 100% alfa scores. No secondary caries was diagnosed in any of the teeth examined. None of the examined restorations required replacement.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Under controlled clinical conditions, posterior resin-based composite restorations placed with the total-etch technique and restorative Z100/SBMP have the potential to present a high success rate at 4 years. None of the examined restorations required replacement, and there was no clinically detectable wear in any of the restorations. Simultaneous etching of enamel and dentin followed by the application of a resin adhesive can be considered an adequate modality of pulp protection in nonexposed tooth preparations.

In vitro evaluation of the marginal degradation of dental composites under simulated occlusal loading

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to use an in vitro oral wear simulator to compare the susceptibility to marginal breakdown of different classes of dental composites.

METHODS

Two microfill composites (Silux Plus, 3M and Heliomolar, Vivadent), two minifills (Z100, 3M and Herculite, Kerr) and two midifills (Fulfil, Caulk and Clearfil, Kuraray) were placed in two increments (40 s cure) into class I cavities (5 x 3.5 x 2 mm3 deep) cut into the facial enamel surfaces of bovine incisors treated with an adhesive (Scotchbond MP, 3M). The restored teeth were aged 1 day in water, mounted in the OHSU oral wear simulator, covered with a slurry of poppy seeds/PMMA beads and subjected to 50 K cycles of wear against an enamel stylus [J.R. Condon, J.L. Ferracane, Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator, Dent. Mater. 12 (1996) 218-226). The specimens (n = 10) were positioned to produce abrasive wear (load = 20 N] across one margin and attrition wear (load = 70 N) across the second margin. Volume loss of material (mm3 x 1000) was estimated from 10 profilometric tracings perpendicular to the attrition margin, and then differentiated into composite and enamel degradation. Fracture toughness of the composites was measured in bending with the single-edge notch technique. Results were compared with ANOVA and Tukey's test at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Significant wear of the composite was produced at the attrition margin. Enamel degradation at the margin paralleled the composite results. The microfills, and to a lesser extent the minifills, showed more marginal breakdown than the midifill composites. Marginal breakdown shows an excellent inverse correlation with fracture toughness for these composites.

SIGNIFICANCE

These results are in general agreement with clinical studies showing greater marginal degradation for microfill composites and suggest that the OHSU oral wear simulator may be a useful adjunct for the study of the marginal degradation of dental composites.

Mechanical properties of resin composites with filler particles aligned by an electric field

OBJECTIVES

To explore possible enhancement of the mechanical properties of resin composites by aligning the filler particles.

METHODS

The resin for the composites consisted of urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) and 1,6-hexanediol dimethacrylate (HDDMA) mixed in the ratio of 90 to 10; the filler was silica-zirconia in two particle sizes, 1.7 microns (P50), which was mixed with the resin in the volume fractions of 29 and 48 vol%, and 0.7 micron (Z100), which was mixed with the resin in the volume fractions of 37 and 57 vol%. Particle alignment was obtained by applying a 60 Hz AC electric field across the composite before the resin was photopolymerized. The stress-strain behavior and the elastic modulus of the hardened composite were measured along the alignment axis in compression.

RESULTS

The elastic moduli of the aligned composites increased by as much as 20%, and the maximum stress sustainable in compression before significant deformation occurred was elevated. An electric field strength of the order of 1 kV mm-1 was required to obtain sufficient alignment.

SIGNIFICANCE

Besides conferring a structure to resin composites that is more like that of the natural tooth, particle alignment increased some of the mechanical properties and may have improved durability.

A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings

OBJECTIVES

From a continuing investigation of the clinical performance of three different types of composite resin, the findings of the clinical evaluation at 8 years are presented.

METHODS

One operator placed 330 restorations in Class I and Class II preparations in the posterior teeth of 72 patients. Every patient received at least one restoration of each type of material: a microfilled composite, a small particle hybrid, a relatively coarse particle hybrid, and an amalgam control. Restorations were evaluated using clinical criteria.

RESULTS

Forty six patients attended the 8-year recall. Twenty-five of the 213 restorations (13.7% of the composites and 5.8% of the amalgams) originally placed in these 46 patients had previously failed or been lost from the study or were assessed as requiring replacement at the 8-year recall. Bulk fracture and secondary caries at the margin were the most common forms of failure in the composite restorations. Other failures or losses were associated with a non-margin defect in the composite, caries not associated with the restoration, pulpal considerations, extraction for orthodontics and reasons unknown. One-hundred and ninety-three restorations (including five that required replacement) were available for clinical evaluation at 8 years and these included 17 Class II restorations. Significantly fewer restorations placed with the coarse particle hybrid exhibited evidence of marginal deterioration.

CONCLUSION

At 8 years, composite restorations in posterior teeth had failed at a rate two to three times that of amalgam restorations. The most common types of failure were bulk fracture and secondary caries at the margin.

Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure

Loss of anatomical form due to wear has been cited as one factor limiting the clinical use of posterior composites. The physical properties and possibly the wear resistance of composite are influenced by the extent to which it is cured. The aim of this study was to vary degree of conversion (DC) in composites to test the hypothesis that resistance to wear and marginal breakdown could be improved by enhanced curing. A light-cured hybrid composite containing a 50% Bis-GMA/50% TEGDMA resin and 62 vol% of strontium glass (1 to 2 microm) with microfill silica was formulated (Bisco). Composite was placed into two 2.5-mm-diameter cylindrical holes in Co-Cr teeth replacing first and second molars in the mandibular dentures of 50 edentulous patients. The composites were light-cured for different time periods (9 s, 12 s, 25 s, 40 s, and 40 s + 10 min at 120 degrees C) and then polished. The microfill Heliomolar was also tested. DC (%) was measured by FTIR and ranged between 55% for 9 s of light-curing and 67% for 40 s of light-curing followed by heat application. Impressions were evaluated at baseline, 6 mo, 1 yr, and 2 yrs. Stone casts were evaluated independently by three observers to determine the % of the total margin exhibiting breakdown. Epoxy replicas were measured with a profilometer for wear. Wear of the hybrid composite at 2 yrs ranged from a high of 144 microm with 9 s of light-curing to a low of 36 microm with 40 s of light-curing followed by heat. Heliomolar exhibited from 11 to 16 microm of wear at 2 yrs. There was a strong negative correlation (r2 = 0.91) between the degree of cure and the abrasive wear of the hybrid composites. Marginal breakdown was negligible for the hybrids, and was reduced for the microfill from 40% to 15% of the margin by heat treatment. This study showed that the resistance to abrasive wear of a dental composite could be improved by enhancement of its degree of conversion.