Bulk‐filled posterior resin restorations based on stress‐decreasing resin technology: a randomized,controlled 6‐year evaluation

This randomized study evaluated a flowable resin composite bulk‐fill technique in posterior restorations and compared it intraindividually with a conventional 2‐mm resin composite layering technique over a 6‐yr follow‐up period. Thirty‐eight pairs of Class II restorations and 15 pairs of Class I restorations were placed in 38 adults. In all cavities a single‐step self‐etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In the first cavity of each pair, the flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments of up to 4 mm. The occlusal part was completed with a layer of nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono). In the second cavity of each pair, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2‐mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then annually for a time period of 6 yr. After 6 yr, 72 Class II restorations and 26 Class I restorations could be evaluated. Six failed Class II molar restorations, three in each group, were observed, resulting in a success rate of 93.9% for all restorations and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.0% for both groups. The AFR for Class II and Class I restorations in both groups was 1.4% and 0%, respectively. The main reason for failure was resin composite fracture.     

Eighteen‐month clinical evaluation of microhybrid,packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations

Summary The aim of this article was to report the results of an 18‐month longitudinal randomized clinical trial that evaluated the clinical performance of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composite restorations placed in Class I cavities of molar teeth. Three Class I resin composite restorations were placed in each of 35 patients. Each patient received one microhybrid (‘Point 4’; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA), one packable (‘Packable Premise’; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and one nanofilled (‘Nanofilled Premise’; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) resin composite restoration. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (2 weeks after placement), and after 6, 12 and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria. No patients were lost from the study. At the final appointment (after 18 months), 95·4%, 93·7% and 96·2% respectively of the microhybrid (‘Point 4’), packable (‘Packable Premise’ and nanofilled (‘Nanofilled Premise’) resin composite restorations received Alfa ratings. Regardless of the type of restorative material, no significant changes were observed in the modified Ryge criteria at the baseline and 18‐month recalls (P ≤0·05). Three restorations (one from each group) exhibited post‐operative sensitivity at the baseline and 6‐month appointment. After 18 months, one packable resin composite restoration failed because of secondary caries, while secondary caries was not detected on any of the other restorations. The clinical performance of microhybrid (‘Point 4’), packable (‘Packable Premise’) and nanofilled (‘Nanofilled Premise’) resin composite restorations was acceptable after 18 months. Further studies with longer follow‐up periods are recommended to investigate the long‐term survival of these restorations.     

3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations

This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after 3 years. Eighty-four restorations were placed in 16 patients. The tested materials were: (i) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (ii) ALERT + Bond-1; (iii) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT; (iv) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and (v) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass-ionomer cement. Each adhesive system and composite resin was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according USPHS modified criteria. Fourteen patients attended the 3-year recall and 75 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon sign-ranked test for pair-wise comparison was used for data analysis (alpha = 0.05). The analysis was performed only for the baseline and for the 3-year period. Solitaire showed some fractures at marginal ridges in 25% of the cases. Solitaire and ALERT showed some concerns related to colour match (43 and 77%, respectively) and surface texture (86 and 77%, respectively). TPH Spectrum showed a great percentage of colour mismatch after 3 years, around 50%. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after 3 years, similar to the hybrid resin tested, TPH Spectrum. Solitaire did not fulfil the ADA acceptance criteria for restorative materials and, therefore, is not recommended for use in posterior restorations.     

One‐year clinical evaluation of a two‐step self‐etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique in cervical lesions

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical performance of a two‐step self‐etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique to advanced non‐carious cervical sclerotic lesions. Methods: Twenty‐two patients (mean age = 51.5) having at least two pairs of non‐carious cervical erosion/attrition/abfraction lesions with incisal or occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentine/cementum were included in the study. The two‐step self‐etch adhesive (AdheSE; Ivoclar‐Vivadent) was either applied following the self‐etch approach on both enamel and dentine (AdheSE non‐etch), or a similar application including additional acid‐etching of the enamel cavity margins with 37% phosphoric acid (AdheSE etch). Resin composite Point 4 was used for all 104 restorations. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at one year according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were analysed by using McNemar’s test (p <0.05). Results: There were no significant differences in the marginal adaptation both at the cervical and enamel margins between AdheSE non‐etch and AdheSE etch groups (p >0.05). At one year, marginal discolouration was evident in the AdheSE non‐etch group but it was not statistically significant from the AdheSE etch group (p = 0.12). Postoperative sensitivity was 5% at baseline and reduced to 2% at one year. Conclusions: At one year, the two‐step self‐etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique showed excellent clinical results to advanced non‐carious cervical sclerotic lesions.     

One-year clinical evaluation of two composite materials used for anterior class V restorations

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two composite materials used for filling anterior cavity preparations. A total of 100 class V cavities of anterior tooth were restored with two different composite materials (Palfique Estelite and Palfique Toughwell, 50 cavities each, respectively) in combination with the same bonding agent (Mac Bond II). Colour match, cavosurface marginal discolouration, recurrent caries, wear, marginal integrity and surface texture were evaluated clinically for all restorations on the basis of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria immediately after insertion (baseline), after 6 months and after 1 year. In the comparison of baseline to 1-year evaluation, the Palfique Toughwell material showed significant changes in all factors except recurrent caries. The Palfique Estelite material, however, showed neither significant cavosurface marginal discolouration nor recurrent caries. No significant difference (P > 0b05) was observed between the two materials in clinical performance after 1 year, with the exception of caries rate, which was found to be significantly lower in the Palfique Estelite material. It was concluded that both composites were clinically reliable materials when used for anterior class V restorations.     

Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin‐modified,glass‐ionomer cement lining: a 1‐year randomized,clinical trial

Aim: To investigate the effect of resin‐modified, glass‐ionomer cement lining on the quality of posterior resin composite restorations, bonded with a two‐step, total‐etch or self‐etching adhesive, at 1 year. Methods: Patients with 1–4 moderate‐to‐deep, primary occlusal caries in molars were informed and recruited. A total of 110 composite restorations were placed in 75 participants, with one of four restorative procedures: (a) bonded with a total‐etch adhesive (Single Bond 2); (b) lined with glass‐ionomer cement (Fuji Lining LC), and then bonded with total‐etch adhesive; (c) bonded with a self‐etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and (d) lined with glass‐ionomer cement, and then bonded with self‐etching adhesive. Results: At 1 year, 57 patients (86 restorations) attended the recall. Each of the restorations was evaluated and scored from 1 (clinically excellent) to 5 (clinically poor) using the following criteria: (a) patient satisfaction; (b) fracture and retention; (c) marginal adaptation; (d) recurrent caries; and (e) post‐operative sensitivity. At 1 year, the qualities of the restorations were not significantly affected by the placement of glass‐ionomer cement lining, regardless of the adhesive used (P > 0.05). Most of the restorations were scored 1 for all criteria. Conclusions: The benefit of placing a glass‐ionomer cement liner in resin composite restoration is questionable.     

Effect of interface surface design on the fracture behavior of bilayered composites

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different interface designs on the load‐bearing capacity of bilayered composite structures (BLS). Cylindrical specimens of BLS were prepared from base composite of 3.5 mm thickness and surface composite of 1.5 mm thickness (n = 80). Two different base composites – flowable bulk‐fill (FBF) [smart dentin replacement (SDR)] and short fiber‐reinforced (FRC) (everX Posterior) – were evaluated, and conventional composite (G‐ænial Posterior) was used as the surface layer. Four different interface designs were used: (i) pyramidal; (ii) mesh; (iii) linear grooves; and (iv) flat surface (control). Three‐dimensional printed molds were fabricated to standardize the interface design between the surface and the base composites. The specimens were then statically loaded with a steel ball until fracture using a universal testing machine. Fracture types were classified into catastrophic, complete, and partial bulk. ANOVA revealed that both the material and the interface design had a statistically significant effect on the load‐bearing capacity. Flowable bulk‐fill showed lower mean load‐bearing capacity than FRC in all the interface designs tested, except for the flat surface design. Fracture analysis showed that FRC demonstrated up to 100% partial bulk fractures with the pyramid interface design, but no incidence of catastrophic bulk fracture. By contrast, FBF demonstrated up to 84.6% and 40% catastrophic bulk fractures with the flat interface design but no incidence of partial bulk fracture. Consequently, the interface designs studied enhanced the fracture behavior of BLS.