Randomized Controlled Trial of Postoperative Sensitivity with Warm and Room Temperature Composite

Impact of repeated preheating of bulk-fill resin composite on postoperative hypersensitivity; a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This clinical study was conducted aiming to evaluate the impact of repeated preheating of bulk-fill resin composite on postoperative hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A total of 105 eligible, consenting adults were recruited. Patients had posterior teeth suffering from proximal decay with no signs of irreversible pulpitis. Patients were prepared for Class II restorations and restored with bulk-fill resin composite. Patients were randomized into three groups of 35 patients according to the number of preheating cycles for the resin composite syringe used; group I: no preheating; control group at room temperature, group II: Resin composite preheated once, and group III: Resin composite preheated ten cycles. Patients were assessed for postoperative dentin hypersensitivity using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at three-time intervals: day one, one week and by the end of one month after restorative treatment. Statistical analysis was performed; ANOVA with a single factor was used to test for significance at a p value ≤ 0.05. For nonparametric data, the Kruskal‒Wallis test was used to compare the three testing groups. Friedman's test was used to study the changes within each group. Dunn's test was used for pairwise comparisons when the Kruskal‒Wallis test or Friedman's test was significant.

RESULTS

The scores of the three groups through the three time intervals were almost zero except for the first day where VAS scores were recorded with maximum score of 3 for groups I and II. Groups II and III; there was no statistically significant change in hypersensitivity scores by time with P-values 0.135 and 0.368, respectively. However, for group I there was a significant difference from VAS score recorded on first day and the two following time intervals.

CONCLUSION

The repeated preheating cycles of bulk-fill resin composite prior to curing had no adverse effect on the patients regarding postoperative dentin hypersensitivity. This information could be of utmost significance, as the same resin composite syringe can undergo numerous preheating cycles clinically before it is completely consumed with the advantage of improvement on the handling properties.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol of the current study was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , with the identification number NCT05289479 on 21/03/2022. All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Egypt, under the approval number 73/440 on 11/09/2020.

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.

36-Month Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluation of Preheated and Room Temperature Resin Composite

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effect of preheating resin composites (RCs) on the clinical performance of class I restorations during a 36-month period using a split-mouth, double-blinded randomized design.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 35 patients were selected. Every patient received one pair of class I nanofilled resin composite (RC, Filtek Z350 XT) posterior restorations (n=70). One side of the mouth received preheated composites; on the other side, the composite was placed in a nonheated state following the manufacturer's instructions. These restorations were evaluated at 1-week (baseline), 12-months, 24-months, and 36-months using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria. The statistical analyses were also performed using the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests with the level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

After 36 months, 33 patients attended the recall visits, and 66 restorations were evaluated. The Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed insignificant differences between both groups (p>0.05) for all FDI parameters. However, a significant difference was detected for staining as a criterion at 36 months (p=0.01). Moreover, a significant difference in the staining was detected when the baseline and 36 months were compared in the nonheated RC group (p=0.001). For esthetic, functional, and biological properties, the nonheated composite exhibited 93.9%, 100%, and 100% of the clinically accepted scores, respectively, and the preheated group presented 100% for all properties. Four restorations had postoperative sensitivity at baseline for nonheated (11.4%) and five for preheated (14.2%), but the postoperative sensitivity scores were considered highly acceptable at 12-, 24-, and 36-months.

CONCLUSIONS

After 36 months, preheated nanofilled RCs showed an acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the nonheated ones in class I restorations, but with better resistance to marginal staining.

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0.

RESULTS

A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.