Minimal intervention in dentistry: which is the best approach for silorane composite restoration repairs?

Bulk-Fill Resins versus Conventional Resins: An Umbrella Review

Currently, composite resins have become the material of choice for the restoration of posterior teeth. Although bulk-fill resins represent a tempting alternative due to their lower complexity and faster use, some dentists are reluctant to use this material. The objective is to compare the performance of bulk-fill resins and conventional resins in direct restorations of posterior teeth based on the literature. The databases that were used to carry out the research were PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the WOS. This umbrella literature review complies with PRISMA standards and assesses the quality of studies using the AMSTAR 2 tool. With the application of the criteria of the AMSTAR 2 tool, the reviews were considered low to moderate. The overall meta-analysis, although without statistical significance, favours mostly the use of conventional resin, as it is about five times more likely to obtain a favourable result than bulk-fill resin. Bulk-fill resins result in a simplification of the clinical process of posterior direct restorations, which is an advantage. The performance in terms of several properties of bulk-fill resins and conventional resins showed that they present similar behaviour.

Bonding Performance for Repairs Using Bulk Fill and Conventional Methacrylate Composites

This study compared the bond strength of a composite repair made with a bulk fill composite and a conventional one using different surface treatments. Specimens were prepared as truncated cones (bases: 4 mm × 2 mm, height: 4 mm) using a bulk fill (OBFa: Filtek One) or a conventional resin (FTKa: Filtek Z250) (n = 66). They were artificially aged (10,000 cycles, 5°C–55°C, 30 sec) and subdivided according to surface treatments: NT—no treatment (control), Abr—abrasion with a diamond tip, and sand—sandblasting with aluminum oxide (50 μm). Treatments were performed over the smaller diameter surface, followed by adhesive (Scothbond Universal) application. A new specimen with similar dimensions was constructed over it using either the OBF or the FTK, totaling 12 groups (n = 11). Bond strength was assessed by tensile test. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA separately for OBFa and FTKa, followed by Tukey's test (p < 0.05). For the aged OBFa groups, there was significant differences for composite type and surface treatment, with higher values of bond strength when repaired with the same material (OBFa/OBF > OBFa/FTK), and sandblasting and bur abrasion presented higher values compared to the control group (NT). For the aged FTKa groups, there were no differences for the composite or surface treatment. Therefore, the bulk fill resin composite tested present better repair performance when the same composite was used, while the conventional resin composite was less influenced by the material and the surface treatment performed.