Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Packable and Nanostructured Resin-Based Composites Placed With Two Techniques

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.

Probing the hierarchy of evidence to identify the best strategy for placing class II dental composite restorations using current materials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to present a synopsis of the existing clinical and in vitro evidence regarding placement of direct class II restorations with dental composites of varying viscosities, focusing on the marginal integrity achievable.

OVERVIEW

The literature on class II composites placed with various techniques was searched through PubMed, Scopus, and the citations of identified articles, focusing on aspects related to adaptation and clinical performance. Studies comparing layering of conventional composite to layering with a flowable liner, including the "snow plow technique," use of warmed composite, flowable bulk-fill liners with a conventional composite capping layer, and bulk-fill restorative in a single or incremental fill (including placement with sonic energy and dual-curing) CONCLUSIONS: In vitro and clinical evidence does not support any one specific method or material type for achieving optimal performance when restoring class II cavity preparations with current dental composites.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although there are many available placement methods and types of composite materials on the market for use in class II restorations, the reasonable success presented in the clinical and laboratory literature for the various approaches suggests that the most important factor for achieving success is likely careful and proper placement and light-curing technique, independent of the approach.

Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to analyze the survival of posterior composite restorations published within the last 19 years (1996-2015).

METHODS

In this study only prospective, clinical trials with specification of the failure rate according to Class I/II composite fillings were included. Studies were analyzed according to the observation period (all studies vs. short-term vs. long-term studies). Retrospective studies and/or open laminate studies, tunnel restorations and Class V restorations were excluded. The following variables possibly influencing the failure rate were extracted from the studies: observation period, recall rate, average age of patients, number of patients, ratio of Class I/II fillings, number of restorations, ratio of premolars/molars, operator, method of isolation, bonding generation and filler size.

RESULTS

A total of 88 studies were included for statistical analysis. The observation period of the studies varied between 1 and 17 years, while most of the studies did not last longer than 5 years. Fracture of the restorations, secondary caries and marginal gap are the main causes for failure in the first 5 years (in descending order), while fracture and secondary caries are similarly distributed in long-term studies. Variables of investigation differed greatly in significance according to the respective observation period. The observation period, the recall rate, the ratio of Class I/II fillings and the number of restorations and patients had a significant influence on the overall failure rate when including all studies (short- and long-term). A linear correlation between the observation period and the failure rate was observed. In long-term studies these variables were not significant any longer. No significant difference in the failure rates between the materials per study was observed. The most common commercial composites investigated were: Tetric Ceram, Surefil, Filtek Supreme (incl. XT), Filtek Z250. The mean annual failure rate was 1.46% (±1.74%) for short-term studies and 1.97% (±1.53) for long-term studies. There is still a big need for clinical studies lasting longer than 5 years, as failure rates of composite restorations in posterior teeth increases with longer observation periods.

SIGNIFICANCE

A decreasing failure rate with an increasing recall rate as observed in our study suggests a patient selection in regard to availability and dental awareness. Internationally standardized evaluation criteria are mandatory in order to allow comparisons of the outcomes of clinical studies.

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

Aim:

To assess the clinical efficacy of posterior composite resin restorations placed directly and indirectly in posterior teeth after five years.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 108 cavities in 54 patients were restored with three direct composite resins (Filtek SupremeXT [FSXT], Tetric Evo Ceram [TEC], AELITE Aesthetic [AA]) and two indirect composite resins (Estenia [E] and Tescera ATL [TATL]). All restorations were evaluated by two examiners using the United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and five years after placement. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher exact and McNemar χ2 tests.

Results:

At baseline, 4% (five) of the restored teeth presented postoperative sensitivity; however, only one of them (a member of the E group) required canal treatment and replacement after two years. At the five-year evaluation, all restorations were retained, with Alpha ratings at 100%. Only one tooth (in the TEC group) required replacement after three years due to secondary caries. Color match, surface texture, and marginal integrity were predominantly scored as Alpha after five years for all groups. After that time, marginal discoloration was scored as Alpha in 64% of AE restorations, 70% of TATL restorations, 73% of E restorations, and 87% of FSXT restorations. There were no Charlie scores recorded for any of the restorative systems.

Conclusions:

Under controlled clinical conditions, indirect composite resin inlays and direct composite resin restorations exhibited an annual failure rate of 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively, after five years. Therefore, the investigated materials showed acceptable clinical performance, and no significant differences were found among them.

Bond strength of a composite resin to an adhesive luting cement

This study evaluated the influence of surface treatment on the shear bond strength of a composite resin (CR), previously submitted to the application of a temporary cement (TC), to an adhesive luting cement. Eight-four CR cylinders (5 mm diameter and 3 mm high) were fabricated and embedded in acrylic resin. The sets were divided into 6 groups (G1 to G6) (n=12). Groups 2 to 6 received a coat of TC. After 24 h, TC was removed and the CR surfaces received the following treatments: G2: ethanol; G3: rotary brush and pumice; G4: air-abrasion; G5: air-abrasion and adhesive system; G6: air-abrasion, acid etching and adhesive system. G1 (control) did not receive TC or any surface treatment. The sets were adapted to a matrix and received an increment of an adhesive luting cement. The specimens were subjected to the shear bond strength test. ANOVA and Tukey's tests showed that G3 (8.53 MPa) and G4 (8.63 MPa) differed significantly (p=0.001) from G1 (13.34 MPa). The highest mean shear bond strength values were found in G5 (14.78 MPa) and G6 (15.86 MPa). Air-abrasion of CR surface associated with an adhesive system provided an effective bond of the CR to the adhesive luting cement, regardless the pre-treatment with the phosphoric acid.