Effects of lesion size on the 30-month clinical performance of restorations with bulk fill and a regular nanofilled resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this double-blind, randomized trial was to evaluate the influence of the occlusogingival distance (OGD) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill resin composite and a regular nanofilled resin composite.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty NCCLs in 77 participants were randomly divided into four groups (n = 35), according to OGD (1.5 mm ± 10% or 3 mm ± 10%) and resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior [B] or Filtek Z350 XT [C]), namely: 1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, 3 mm-B, and 3 mm-C. The restorations were bonded using a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond), applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were polished 1 week after placement. Two experienced and calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline (7 days) and after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months. Statistical analyses were carried out using Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman's repeated measures analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

After 30 months, the recall rate was 94.2%. Eight restorations were lost (3 for 1.5 mm-C, 2 for 1.5 mm-B, 1 for 3 mm-C, and 2 for 3 mm-B). All groups resulted in a significantly worse marginal discoloration and surface texture at 30 months in comparison with the baseline (1 week). No significant difference was found for the other parameters.

CONCLUSION

The restorations performed with both resin composites produced clinically acceptable restorations. The OGD of NCCLs did not influence the clinical performance of restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The OGD of NCCLs did not have a significant effect on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill and nanofilled restorations. Both materials showed a very good performance on 30-month evaluation.

Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of posterior high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations in a high caries incidence population: interim results of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the clinical performance of two bulk-fill (BF) and one conventional resin composite in a population with a high caries incidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 138 class I and II restorations were performed and randomly divided into three groups (n = 46) with equal allocation: Filtek BF (FBF; 3M ESPE), Tetric EvoCeram BF (TBF; Ivoclar Vivadent), and control Filtek Z250 (Z250; 3M ESPE). The evaluations were performed using the USPHS and FDI criteria at baseline and after 12 and 36 months by a previously calibrated evaluator. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests for paired data were used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The DMFT index at baseline was 9.44, with 87% from the decayed component. After 36 months, 108 restorations (n = 36) were evaluated. Two failures were observed for TBF at marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, resulting in a survival rate of 94.44% and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.26%. No equivalence was observed between the criteria for surface roughness, marginal adaptation, and discoloration.

CONCLUSIONS

The 36-month clinical performance of high-viscosity BF resin composites was comparable to conventional incremental-filled resin composites. The FDI criteria better presented the restorations' clinical success. However, in the case of failure, both criteria provided the same result.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

High-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites showed excellent performance after 36 months in a high caries incidence population. It can be considered a simplified alternative restoration method that reduces operating time and minimizes possible operator errors.

Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this double blind, randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of the layering technique (incremental [IF] vs. bulk-fill [BF]) in posterior composite resin restorations bonded with self-etch (SE) and etch-and-rinse (ER) strategies.

METHODS

Posterior dental cavities of 72 participants (n = 236), with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm, were randomly divided into four groups. The restorations were bonded using either the Tetric N-Bond ER or Tetric N-Bond SE. The composite resin Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill was placed either IF or using BF. Two experienced and calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations using FDI criteria in the baseline and after 12, 24 and 36-month. The statistical analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon Signed rank test (α = 0.05) RESULTS: After 36-month, 14, 21 and 33 restorations showed minor fractures, marginal desadaptation and color mismatch, respectively (p > 0.05). Thirty-three restorations showed some marginal discoloration after 36-month with significant difference between ER (3 for ER-IF; 3 for ER-BF) and SE (14 for SE-IF; 12 for SE-BF; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The BF technique showed excellent clinical performance, which was comparable during the 36-month of clinical evaluation with the 2-mm IF and it was not affected by the adhesive strategy. However, using the ER strategy reduces the risk of some marginal discoloration, irrespectively of the filling technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The bulk-fill material showed excellent clinical behavior when compared to its use in an incremental filling technique, mainly when associated to etch-and-rinse adhesive material after 3 years of clinical evaluation.