One-year comparative evaluation of Ketac Nano with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and Giomer in noncarious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial

Do bioactive materials show greater retention rates in restoring permanent teeth than non-bioactive materials? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To answer the following research question: does the clinical evaluation of restorations on permanent teeth with bioactive materials show greater retention rates than those with non-bioactive materials?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search strategy was used in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a minimum of 2-year follow-up and evaluating at least one bioactive material in permanent teeth were included. Risk of bias was detected according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias (RoB 2.0), and network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects Bayesian-mixed treatment comparison model.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included. The success of the restorations was assessed using modified USPHS system in 24 studies and the FDI criteria in 3 studies. Network meta-analysis revealed three networks based on restoration preparations. Resin composites were ranked with higher SUCRA values, indicating a greater likelihood of being the preferred treatment for class I, II, and III restorations. In class V, resin-modified glass ionomer cement was ranked with the highest value.

CONCLUSION

Bioactive restorative materials showed similar good clinical performance in terms of retention similarly to conventional resin composites.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The findings must be interpreted with caution because many RCT on restorative materials aim to verify the equivalence of new materials over the gold standard material rather than their superiority. The present systematic review also suggests that new RCT with longer follow-up periods are necessary.

Clinical Evaluation of Low-shrinkage Bioactive Material Giomer Versus Nanohybrid Resin Composite Restorations: A Two-year Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial

This study evaluated the clinical performance of low-shrinkage bioactive resin composite compared with a conventional nanohybrid resin composite. A total of 35 patients (18 males, 17 females; mean age: 29±9 years old) received, randomly, 35 pairs of fillings restored with either low-shrinkage bioactive material employing Giomer filler technology (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or conventional nanohybrid resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Japan) in Class I and Class II cavities. Two operators made all the restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins: FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), according to each manufacturer's instructions. Two calibrated operators evaluated the restorations two weeks after placement (baseline), at six months, and at one and two years using FDI criteria (Scores 1-5). Data were analyzed using the McNemar test (α=0.05). Mean observation time was 27.4 ± 4.1 months (min=20.8; max=33.7). In both groups, according to FDI criteria, the restorations were mostly rated with best scores (Score 1 or 2) for biological, functional, and optical parameters. For one filling in the group restored with nanohybrid resin composite, a small and localized secondary caries lesion was observed and monitored at the one- and two-year follow-ups. One restoration in the low-shrinkage Giomer restorative group was accepted as a failure due to retention loss. Over the two-year follow-up, both the Giomer and the nanohybrid resin composite restorations' performance was clinically acceptable.

Evaluation of the clinical performance of GIOMERs and comparison with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the clinical performance of GIOMER restorative composites and compare them with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth.Methods Searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid and Cochrane Library were conducted. Grey literature search was also performed. Clinical trials that evaluated the clinical performance of restorations with GIOMER restorative composites in permanent teeth compared to those using composite resin, glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and other GIOMERs were included. Meta-analyses comparing GIOMER restorative composites with RMGIC at 6- and 12-month follow-ups and comparing two types of GIOMER were feasible.Results Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In these studies, GIOMER was compared to different types of dental restoration materials. Dental restorations were evaluated by United States Public Health Service criteria in all included studies. Four studies were suitable for meta-analysis, which showed significant differences between GIOMER and RMGIC surface roughness at 6-month (odds ratio [OR] = 6.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.38-18.13) and 12-month (OR = 8.76; CI = 3.19-24.07) follow-ups. No significant differences between GIOMER restorative composites and RMGIC for marginal adaptation were found at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. When comparing two GIOMERs, significant differences were seen between Beautifil II and Beautifil Flowable Plus F00 for marginal staining (OR = 2.58; CI = 1.42-23.27; I2 = 0%) and surface roughness (OR = 4.59; CI = 1.11-18.97; I2 = 0%) at the 36-month follow-up. No significant differences between Beautifil II and Beautifil Flowable Plus F00 were seen for marginal adaptation and anatomic form at 6-, 18- and 36-month follow-ups.Conclusions GIOMER restorative composites presented similar performance concerning marginal adaptation and better surface roughness when compared to RMGIC. GIOMER Beautifil II presented similar performance to GIOMER Beautifil Flow Plus F00 concerning marginal adaptation and anatomic form and worse marginal staining and surface roughness when compared to Beautifil Flowable Plus F00.

Eighteen-month clinical performance of preheated nanoceramic resin-based composites in Class I occlusal cavities: A randomized clinical trial

Aims:

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preheated nanoceramic resin-based composite (RBC) (Ceram-X-Mono) placed in Class I occlusal cavities over a period of 18 months.

Settings and Design:

This study involves split-mouth design, randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT)

Materials and Methods:

One operator restored 60 Class I occlusal cavities in 24 patients. Preheating of nanoceramic RBC to 60°C for 10 min was performed before insertion of the material into 30 prepared cavities, whereas 30 restorations in the nonpreheated group were placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Two observers evaluated the restorations using Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months.

Statistical Analysis:

Kappa index, Friedman and Wilcoxon matched pair test, and Krushal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results:

100% retention rates were seen in both the groups. In nonpreheated group, significant difference was observed for surface staining (P = 0.0001), color stability (P = 0.0277), anatomic form (P = 0.0431), and marginal adaptation (P = 0.0051), whereas in preheated group, significant increase in surface staining (P = 0.0051) was recorded. There was a statistically significant difference observed between the preheated and nonpreheated groups at different time periods for the tested clinical parameters.

Conclusion:

Within the limitations of this RCT of 18 months, preheated nanoceramic RBC restorations showed better clinical performance compared to nonpreheated group.

Role of Nanotechnology in Dentistry: Systematic Review

Aim:

This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of role of nanotechnology in dentistry and to evaluate its applicability in prevention and treatment of oral diseases.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted in 2 electronic databases – PMC and Cochrane. The search was restricted to the articles published during the last 5 years. First-level screening was done to select articles for the review on the basis of title and abstract. Then, full texts of selected articles were studied, and relevant articles were selected to be included in this review. Articles selected were critically appraised to evaluate their quality.

Results:

Literature search revealed 837 articles in PMC, 15 in Clinical trial register of US National library, and 43 in Cochrane. Additional 6 articles were identified by hand search. Eleven clinical trials were included in this review.

Conclusion:

Advancement in nanotechnology has greatly influenced dental disease prevention and therapy significantly.

Clinical efficacy of different marginal forms of endocrowns: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

After root canal treatment, most tooth defects need to be restored. Onlay restoration is widely used to restore dental defects. Endocrown is a new type of onlay; however, dentists have yet to obtain a full understanding of the clinical effects of marginal forms of endocrowns. Here, we present a multicenter protocol to compare the clinical efficacy of two marginal forms (flat and 90-degree shoulder) for tooth restoration. The efficacy will be evaluated by marginal fit, marginal discoloration, and integrity of restoration.

Methods

The proposed flat and 90-degree shoulder marginal endocrown assessment trial is an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter randomized controlled trial involving two hospitals. A total of 200 patients will be included in this trial, and the following patient inclusion criteria will be applied: good oral hygiene habits, no periodontal diseases, receipt of standard root canal treatment, and need for endocrown restoration. Patients will be enrolled after providing signed informed consent and will be divided into two groups (flat and 90-degree shoulder endocrown) in accordance with a random number table. Treatment allocation will be balanced (1:1). Endocrowns will be cemented by dual-cured luting composite. Clinical evaluations will be performed at baseline and at 24 months after treatment in accordance with modified US Public Health Service criteria by two independent evaluators. The primary outcome will be marginal fit; secondary outcome measures will include debonding, marginal discoloration, and integrity of restoration. All acquired data will be analyzed by an independent statistician. Wilcoxon one-sample tests will be used for intra-group comparisons, and Wilcoxon two-sample tests will be used for inter-group comparisons. The Bonferroni method will be used to correct for multiple comparisons, and hierarchical logistic regression will be applied to determine central effects.

Discussion

The results of this trial will provide a clinical basis for clinicians to restore teeth by endocrowns and to improve long-term restoration for patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03398395. Registered on 12 January 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3530-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.