Effect of polishing direction on the marginal adaptation of composite resin restorations

A systematic approach to contouring and polishing anterior resin composite restorations: A checklist manifesto

PURPOSE

This article presents a systematic, step-by-step checklist approach to be used for contouring and polishing anterior resin composite restorations to achieve maximum esthetics efficiently.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This checklist is intended to be used to take the guesswork out and streamline the process to predictably, practically, and repeatedly contour and polish anterior resin composite restorations. The practitioner's knowledge of basic dental anatomy combined with this step-by-step checklist facilitates identifying and modifying the final restoration to an anatomically correct form, thus satisfying the most esthetically demanding patients. This approach is demonstrated with case presentation of direct resin veneers in a young female, which resulted in an improved smile that satisfied her esthetic desires.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of standardized protocols facilitates and expedites daily procedures in dentistry. Specifically, this checklist protocol, which is geared towards contouring and polishing anterior direct resin composite restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The clinical technique presented in this article shows the advantages of using a step-by-step checklist approach to predictably and efficiently obtain ideal esthetics when performing anterior resin composite restorations.

Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin

Polymerization shrinkage of resin composite can compromise the longevity of restorations. To minimize this problem, the monomeric composition of composites have been modified. The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the clinical behavior of restorations performed with low polymerization shrinkage resin composite in comparison with traditional methacrylates-based resin composite. This systematic review was registered at Prospero data system (CRD42015023940). Studies were searched in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs and EMBASE according to a predefined search strategy. The inclusion criteria were as follow: (1) randomized controlled clinical trials with at least six months of follow-up; (2) studies investigating composites with monomers designed to reduce polymerization shrinkage; (3) studies conducted with class I or II restorations in the permanent dentition; and (4) studies that assessed at least one of the following criteria: marginal integrity/adaptation, marginal discoloration, recurent caries, retention of composite restorations, and postoperative sensitivity. Two independent reviewers analyzed the articles to determine inclusion and risk of bias. The search conducted in the databases resulted in a total of 14,217 studies. After reviewing the references and citations, 21 articles remained. The longest clinical follow-up time was 60 months. The meta-analysis of the data in the included studies demonstrated that only one variable (marginal adaptation after 12 months) showed statistically significant outcomes, in which methacrylates-based composites presented significantly better results than resin composites containing modified monomers. The good level of the scientific evidence as well as the overall low risk of bias of the included studies indicate that composites with silorane, ormocer or bulk-fill type modified monomers have a clinical performance similar to conventional resin composites.

Novel Microscalpels for Removing Proximal Composite Resin Overhangs on Class II Restorations

Introduction:

Limited access to interdental spaces complicates removal of excess material when placing class II composite resin restorations. Evidence-based recommendations on interproximal finishing are rare. We present novel microscalpels for this indication. The aim of the study was to test their fracture strength and cutting ability and to compare microscalpels with the use of a scaler, oscillating devices (G5-ProShape, G5-Proxocare), finishing strips and scalpels of sizes 12, 15, and 21 in a standardized in vitro model.

Methods and Materials:

Fracture strength (LOAD) and cutting forces (CUT) of microscalpels were evaluated at different angles (15, 30, 60, and 75 degrees; n=30 each) in a universal testing machine. Devices were compared in vitro using standardized composite overhangs. Marginal quality (QUAL; n=30) and quantity of excess/deficit (QUAN; n=30) were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for each device (explorative data analysis, Student t-test or analysis of variance; post hoc Scheffé).

Results:

Microscalpels showed the highest LOAD (95.8 [5.0] N) (mean [standard deviation]) and easiest cutting (CUT) (7.6 [1.5]) at 15 degrees. At all angles, LOAD was significantly higher than CUT (p<0.001). Perfect margins were seen most often with scalpel size 12 (QUAL: 37% relative frequency), while most excess (73.4%) was observed with finishing strips. QUAN was lowest with microscalpels (19.3 [4.4] μm) and highest with finishing strips (116.0 [18.8]). Use of scalers led to fractures and crack formation.

Conclusion:

Microscalpels are able to cut composite at a lower force than necessary to fracture the blades at all angles. Small and/or curved scalpels yield the best-quality margins.

The effect of repeated preheating of dimethacrylate and silorane-based composite resins on marginal gap of class V restorations

Background. One of the problems with composite resin restorations is gap formation at resin‒tooth interface. The present study evaluated the effect of preheating cycles of silorane- and dimethacrylate-based composite resins on gap formation at the gingival margins of Class V restorations.

Methods. In this in vitro study, standard Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 48 bovine incisors. For restorative procedure, the samples were randomly divided into 2 groups based on the type of composite resin (group 1: di-methacrylate composite [Filtek Z250]; group 2: silorane composite [Filtek P90]) and each group was randomly divided into 2 subgroups based on the composite temperature (A: room temperature; B: after 40 preheating cycles up to 55°C). Marginal gaps were measured using a stereomicroscope at ×40 and analyzed with two-way ANOVA. Inter- and intra-group comparisons were analyzed with post-hoc Tukey tests. Significance level was defined at P < 0.05.

Results. The maximum and minimum gaps were detected in groups 1-A and 2-B, respectively. The effects of composite resin type, preheating and interactive effect of these variables on gap formation were significant (P<0.001). Post-hoc Tukey tests showed greater gap in dimethacrylate compared to silorane composite resins (P< 0.001). In each group, gap values were greater in composite resins at room temperature compared to composite resins after 40 preheating cycles (P<0.001).

Conclusion. Gap formation at the gingival margins of Class V cavities decreased due to preheating of both composite re-sins. Preheating of silorane-based composites can result in the best marginal adaptation.