Reliability of Class II Bulk-fill Composite Restorations With and Without Veneering: A Two-year Randomized Clinical Control Study

Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

The purpose of this randomized, split-mouth-designed controlled and single-blinded clinical study was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations placed with or without cavity lining with a flowable composite. Fifty patients with treatment needs in two premolars or molars were included. One of the teeth was restored using the nanohybrid composite (Grandio®SO, control group), in the test group a high viscosity flowable composite was additionally applied as a first layer. In both groups, the same self-etch adhesive system was applied. Clinical evaluation after 3 years was carried out using the modified USPHS/Ryge criteria. At the 3-year follow-up the recall rate was 92%. Four restorations failed in the test group (8.7%), three due to the loss of vitality and one after fracture. The control group exhibited a cumulative success rate of 100%, while the test group achieved a success rate of 91.3%. This led to significant differences in the annual failure rate (AFR) between the two groups, with rates of 0% and 2.9% (p < 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). After 3 years the cumulative survival rate including all restorations was 95.7%. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences for the parameters: tooth vitality, marginal discoloration, success rate, and AFR. The other parameters exhibited no significant differences. Consequently, the nanohybrid composite demonstrated excellent performance over a 3-year period, whereas the utilization of a flowable composite for the cavity lining did not appear to exert a beneficial influence on clinical outcomes.

Can composite packaging and selective enamel etching affect the clinical behavior of bulk-fill composite resin in posterior restorations? 24-month results of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This is a double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical study that aims to evaluate the influence of bulk-fill composite packaging presented in syringes (BSy) and capsules (BCa), and the effect of selective enamel etching (SEE) on the clinical performance of class I and II bulk-fill resin composite restorations after 24 months.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 295 class I or class II restorations were performed on 70 patients. One universal adhesive was applied in all restorations. SEE was used in 148 restorations and self-etching mode (SET) in 147 restorations. After the adhesive application, cavities were restored with Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior Restorative in syringes (BSy), Filtek One Bulk-fill in capsules (BCa), or Filtek Supreme Ultra in syringes with the incremental technique (In). All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after one week and after six, 12, and 24 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Pearson's Chi-square test were used (α=0.05) for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 24 months, 62 patients were evaluated and four restorations were lost due to fracture (one for SEEBSy, two for SEEIn, and one for SETIn). No significant differences in the fracture and retention rate were found between groups (p>0.05). SEE showed significantly fewer marginal adaptation defects than SET (p<0.05). BCa and BSy groups showed fewer marginal discrepancies compared to In (p<0.05). Restorations performed with BCa showed less color mismatch than BSy or In (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although all restorations exhibited satisfactory clinical performance after 24 months of clinical service, the clinical behavior of class I and II restorations' improved when performed with a bulk-fill composite in capsules, mainly when associated with a universal adhesive applied with SEE.

Toward a Clinically Reliable Class II Resin Composite Restoration: A Cross-Sectional Study into the Current Clinical Practice among Dentists in Saudi Arabia

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current clinical practice of general dentists in Saudi Arabia in restoring class II cavities using direct resin composites and to set evidence-based practice recommendations of concern.

Methods

An online survey formed of 20 questions and classified into four domains was developed. 500 dentists in 5 Saudi provinces were invited to join the survey anonymously and voluntarily using poster announcements and e-mail invitations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participants' responses.

Results

343 responses were received. Dentists in Saudi Arabia vary in their clinical practices and techniques of insertion of resin composite in class II cavities. 67% of participants use cotton rolls for isolating the field while 32% use rubber dam isolation. 33% and 28% of respondents use circumferential matrix (Tofflemire) and AutoMatrix, respectively. Fracture, followed by recurrent caries and open proximal contacts, was the received main reason of failure of class II direct resin composite restorations.

Conclusion

Diversity of class II resin composite practices exists among dentists in Saudi Arabia. For ensuring optimum quality outcomes and high standards of restorative dentistry healthcare, several dentists in Saudi Arabia need to reconsider their clinical practice and modify their clinical procedures of direct class II resin composites. Several evidence-based practice guidelines are recommended to dentists in this article to improve their practice and enhance the clinical reliability and longevity of class II direct resin composite restorations.