Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years

Objectives

In a controlled prospective split-mouth study, clinical behavior of two different resin composites in extended Class II cavities was observed over six years.

Methods

Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Solobond M + Grandio: n = 36; Syntac + Tetric Ceram: n = 32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement fillings, 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 48% of cavities remaining proximal enamel width was <0.5 mm. Restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after six months, one, two, four, and six years.

Results

Success rate was 100% after six years of clinical service, while the drop out of patients was 0%. Neither materials nor localization of the restoration (upper vs. lower jaw) had a significant influence on clinical outcome in any criterion after six years (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). Molar restorations performed worse regarding marginal integrity (4 years), filling integrity (6, 12, 24, 48 months), and tooth integrity (4 and 6 years). Irrespective of the resin composite used, significant changes over time were found for all criteria recorded (Friedman test; p < 0.05). Marginal quality revealed a major portion of overhangs having been clearly reduced after the one year recall (baseline: 44%; 6 months: 65%; 1 year: 47%; 2 years: 6%; 4 years: 4%; and 6 years: 3%). Beyond the 1 year recall, negative step formations significantly increased due to wear (p < 0.05), having been more pronounced in molars (87% bravo after 4 years) than in premolars (51% bravo after 4 years). Tooth integrity significantly deteriorated due to enamel cracks, which increased over time (p < 0.05). Enamel chippings and cracks were significantly more frequent in molars (26% bravo after 4 years to 35% after six years) than in premolars (9% bravo after 4 years, 11% after six years). Restoration integrity over time mainly suffered surface roughness and wear (28% after one year, 75% after two years, 84% after four years, 91% after six years).

Significances

Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 6-year observation period. Due to the extension of the restorations, wear was clearly visible after six years of clinical service with 91% bravo ratings.     

Clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after up to 33 years

ObjectivesThis retrospective study evaluated the performance of posterior composites after up to 33 years of clinical service and investigated factors associated with the risk of failures over time including patient- and tooth-related variables.MethodsPatients who received at least one Class I or Class II direct composite restoration in a private office in 1986–1992 and had follow-up appointments were included. Failures and interventions over time were investigated using the dental records. A follow-up clinical recall was carried out in 2020. Two scenarios were considered: restorations that did not require any intervention (success) or restorations that were repaired and still functional (survival). Multivariate Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed using success and survival rates (p < 0.05).ResultsOne hundred patient records and 683 restorations were included. A total of 353 failures were reported (success rate= 48%). Main reasons for failure were fracture and secondary caries. Most interventions after failures were repairs. Replacements were registered in 183 cases (survival rate= 73%). Annual failure rates were below 2.5% (success) and 1.1% (survival). Larger restorations and maxillary molars had higher failure risks. No significant differences in success rates among different resin composites was observed. A typical observation in this sample of restorations was the presence of moderate to advanced signs of aging, including marginal and surface staining, wear, chipping, changes in anatomical shape and translucency. Clearly aged restorations were still clinically satisfactory. Significance: This long-term, practice-based study indicates that resin composites can be used to restore posterior teeth with a long-lasting durability.     

Effect of multi-step dentin bonding systems and resin-modified glass ionomer cement liner on marginal quality of dentin-bonded resin composite Class II restorations

The use of resin composites in the restoration of Class II cavities with gingival margins located in dentin is still controversial. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of four state-of-the-art multi-step dentin-bonding systems (A. R. T. Bond, Syntac, OptiBond DC, Scotchbond Multipurpose) on marginal adaptation and microleakage of dentin-bonded composite Class II restorations. A total of 72 Class II cavities with gingival margins in dentin were prepared in extracted molars and filled with fine-hybrid composites using a three-sited light curing technique. In one half of the cavities the pulpal wall was lined with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement liner (RM-GIC), in the other half a total bonding technique was applied. A. R. T. Bond and Syntac were tested with selective enamel etching (SE) and total etching (TE). Marginal adaptation was evaluated in a scanning electron microscope before and after thermocycling (TC). Microleakage was determined by dye penetration. After TC the proportions of continuous margin in dentin ranged from 37% (Syntac/SE) to 91.2% (A. R. T. Bond/TE). Scotchbond Multipurpose exhibited the lowest degree of microleakage (0.22 mm). Marginal enamel fracture was the most prevalent marginal defect at the enamel margins (8.3–22.2%). The use of the RM-GIC had no beneficial effect on any of the marginal parameters, either in dentin or in enamel. It is concluded that low degrees of marginal gap formation and microleakage can be achieved in totally bonded composite Class II restorations when using state-of-the-art multi-step bonding systems in combination with a meticulous incremental filling technique. Received: 6 April 1998 / Accepted: 25 August 1998     

Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a packable restorative material, after 2 years in stress-bearing posterior cavities, according to the Ryge criteria. At least two Class 2 restorations (occluso-mesial, mesial-occlusal-distal, occlusal-distal) were placed in 46 patients (36.7 +/- 16 years). In each of the restorations (lot 221, metal matrix band system, glass ionomer-cement-base in 53% of the cavities, mostly no rubber dam) an adhesive system was used. Additionally, in each patient a flowable composite was used in one of the two fillings. After 2 years, 70% of the patients were available for reevaluation. Two restorations needed to be replaced as a result of postoperative sensitivities within the observation period, and one tooth received root canal treatment. All other restored teeth remained vital. One restoration with marginal discoloration received a score of Charlie; another with secondary caries received a score of Bravo. All the others revealed excellent and clinically acceptable results. No statistically significant difference (Chi-square-test) was observed between the two groups, with and without an additional flowable composite. After 2 years, the restorative material performed clinically well, with no observable fractures in the restoration.     

Direct posterior composite resin restorations: A review. 2. Clinical technique

Despite the increased use of composite resin to restore posterior teeth, there is evidence that clinicians should be selective in their use of these restorations. This paper describes the clinical technique--preparatory procedures, preparation of the cavity, preparation for placement of composite resin, placement of composite resin and finishing of the restoration--for the relatively conservative use of composite resin in posterior teeth and reviews the literature to discuss briefly many of the controversial aspects of the technique.     

56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations

Objective

This study evaluated the 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations. Filtek P60 was compared with Filtek Z250, which are both indicated for posterior restorations but differ in terms of handling characteristics. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the clinical performance of the two resin composites in posterior teeth.

Material and Methods

Thirty-three patients were treated by the same operator, who prepared 48 Class I and 42 Class II cavities, which were restored with Single Bond/Filtek Z250 or Single Bond/Filtek P60 restorative systems. Restorations were evaluated by two independent examiners at baseline and after 56 months, using the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square and Fisher''s Exact tests (a=0.05).

Results

After 56 months, 25 patients (31 Class I and 36 Class II) were analyzed. A 3% failure rate occurred due to secondary caries and excessive loss of anatomic form for P60. For both restorative systems, there were no significant differences in secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. However, significant changes were observed with respect to anatomic form, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. Significant decreases in surface texture were observed exclusively for the Z250 restorations.

Conclusions

Both restorative systems can be used for posterior restorations and can be expected to perform well in the oral environment.     

Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials

Resin composites have become the first choice for direct posterior restorations and are increasingly popular among clinicians and patients. Meanwhile, a number of clinical reports in the literature have discussed the durability of these restorations over long periods. In this review, we have searched the dental literature looking for clinical trials investigating posterior composite restorations over periods of at least 5 years of follow-up published between 1996 and 2011. The search resulted in 34 selected studies. 90% of the clinical studies indicated that annual failure rates between 1% and 3% can be achieved with Class I and II posterior composite restorations depending on several factors such as tooth type and location, operator, and socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral elements. The material properties showed a minor effect on longevity. The main reasons for failure in the long term are secondary caries, related to the individual caries risk, and fracture, related to the presence of a lining or the strength of the material used as well as patient factors such as bruxism. Repair is a viable alternative to replacement, and it can increase significantly the lifetime of restorations. As observed in the literature reviewed, a long survival rate for posterior composite restorations can be expected provided that patient, operator and materials factors are taken into account when the restorations are performed.     

Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: A 12-year follow-up

Objective

Polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress has been considered as one of the main disadvantages of resin composite restorations. Cavities with high C-factors increase the risk for interfacial failures. Several restorative techniques have been suggested to decrease the shrinkage stress. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the durability of techniques as oblique layering, indirect curing and/or a laminate with a poly-acid modified resin composite in direct Class I resin composite restorations in a 12-year follow-up.

Methods

Each of 29 patients received one or two pair(s) rather extensive Class I restorations. The first restoration was a poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite sandwich restoration and the second a direct resin composite restoration. Both restorations, except for the laminate layer, were placed with oblique layering and two-step curing technique. 90 restorations were evaluated annually with slightly modified USPHS criteria during 12 years.

Results

At 12 years, 38 pairs were evaluated. Two cases of slight post-operative sensitivity were observed in one patient. A cumulative failure rate of 2.4% was observed for both the resin composite and the laminate restorations. One laminate restoration showed non-acceptable color match, but was not replaced and one resin composite restoration showed a chip fracture. Five restorations were replaced due to primary proximal caries.

Conclusions

The high failure rate expected in the high C-factor Class I cavity, associated with polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress, were not observed. The techniques used resulted in an excellent durability for the Class I resin composite restorations.     

Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years

There is a wide range of materials suitable for posterior resin-composite restorations. The objective of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a packable resin composite (Solitaire, Heraeus-Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) in stress-bearing posterior cavities according to the Ryge criteria every 6 months over a 3-year period. A total of 250 class I (28%) and II (72%) restorations were placed in 120 patients using adhesive-bonding techniques without the use of rubber dam. After 3 years, 165 restorations (66%) were still in place during the follow-up investigation. Twelve restorations (4.8% out of the baseline number) had to be replaced due to postoperative sensitivity over the 3-year evaluation period. After 3 years, 65.5% of the restorations were scored Alpha for Marginal Adaptation, 18.2% Bravo, 2.4% Charlie, and 13.9% Delta. For the Ryge criteria Anatomic Form 70.9% of the restorations were scored Alpha, 15.2% Bravo, and 13.9% Charlie. Secondary caries was documented in 3.5% of the restorations. A Bravo score for Marginal Discoloration was determined in 26.1% of the restorations; 2.1% were scored Charlie. After 3 years, only 79.0% (summation effect of negative scores) of the restorations were still performing at clinically acceptable levels. Therefore, the packable resin composite Solitaire failed the criteria of the American Dental Association for resin restoratives. Bulk fractures (14 molar and 9 premolar restorations = 9.2% of the baseline number) due to poor physical properties of the material were the main reason for clinical failure.     

SEM study of surface characteristics and marginal adaptation of anterior resin restorations after 3-4 years

SEM replica technique was used to study surface characteristics and marginal adaptation of 278 anterior resin fillings 3-4 yr old. The fillings showed degradation of surfaces and margins with eroded areas and exposed macro- and microfiller particles. Cohesive failures were seen as chip fractures and marginal fractures parallel to the cavity margins. Microfiller resin fillings showed less rough surface characteristics than the conventional and hybrid composite resins in spite of a higher frequency of fillings with surface degradation. The microfiller resin fillings activated by visible light, in particular, showed relatively smooth surface characteristics with less surface degradation and less porosity. About 50% of the conventional and hybrid composite fillings showed marginal defects. The two chemically cured microfiller resin fillings showed marginal defects in 66% or 88%, whereas for the visible light cured microfiller resin fillings defects were observed in 44%.     

Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ormocer Definite (Degudent, Hanau, Germany) as resin luting cement.

Methods

In a controlled prospective clinical study, 57 Cergogold (Degudent) all-ceramic inlays were placed in 24 patients by four dentists. The restorations were luted with two different systems (MD = Definite Multibond + Definite; SV = Syntac + Variolink Ultra, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) without lining. At baseline, after 12, 24, and 48 months, restorations were examined according to modified USPHS scores and criteria.

Results

One patient including three restorations missed the 4 years recall (dropout). After 48 months of clinical service, four restorations in four patients (three luted with Definite, one with Variolink) failed due to inlay fracture (n = 3) and tooth fracture (n = 1), all other fillings were clinically acceptable (survival rate 93.3% for Definite vs. 95.2% for Variolink; Kaplan–Meier algorithm). Except for the rate of hypersensitivity at baseline (MD: 27%; SV 0%; p < 0.05), no differences were evident between the luting cements at any recalls (Mann–Whitney U-test; p > 0.05). Between the four recalls, a statistically significant deterioration was detected for both groups regarding the criteria marginal adaptation, filling integrity (cracks/chippings/fractures), and tooth integrity (Friedman test; p < 0.001). After 4 years, mainly distinct deterioration with marginal fractures or chippings in proximal and marginal areas of the inlays were observed. No differences were found for surface roughness, color matching, and proximal contact (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

For luting of ceramic inlays, only slight differences between the two luting systems were detectable.     

SEM study of surface characteristics and marginal adaptation of anterior resin restorations after 3–4 years

SEM replica technique was. used to study surface characteristics and marginal adaptation of278 anterior resin fillings. 3-4 yr old. The fillings showed degradation of surfaces and margins with eroded areas and exposed macro- and microfiller particles. Cohesive failures were seen as chip fractures and marginal fractures parallel to the cavity margins. Microfiller resin fillings showed less rough surface characteristics than the conventional and hybrid composite resins in spite of a higher frequency of fillings with surface degradation. The microfiller resin fillings activated by visible light, in particular, showed relatively smooth surface characteristics with less surface degradation and less porosity. About 50% of the conventional and hybrid composite fillings showed marginal defects. The two chemically cured microfiller resin fillings showed marginal defects in 66% or 88%, whereas for the visible light cured microfiller resin fillings defects were observed in 44%.     

A 4-year clinical study on amalgam, resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in overdenture abutments

Objective: To assess the performance of three different filling materials in overdenture abutment teeth.

Methods: In 49 patients amalgam, resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement were used to seal the root canal orifices of 155 overdenture abutment teeth. After initial preparation of the cavities, the three restorative materials were randomly assigned to the abutment teeth using a number of balancing criteria. All patients were reviewed every six months and received the same preventive regimen. Survival was assessed at two levels: S_orig (survival of the restoration independent from eventual maintenance treatments) and S_comp (restorations survived even without maintenance treatments).

Results: The calculated overall survival percentage of the original restorations (S_orig) after four years was 63±6% (mean±SE). Calculation for the overall complete survival (S_comp) revealed a percentage survival of 57±6%. At both levels, the differences between the survivals of the investigated materials were not statistically significant (p-values>0.05). Two abutments were lost, severe caries was the reason for one extraction and another abutment tooth was extracted for periodontal reasons.

Conclusions: The results of this study did not point out a superior restorative material for the seal of root canal orifices of overdenture abutments. The distribution of failures over the patients indicates a certain patient dependency.     

Clinical survival and performance of premolars restored with direct or indirect cusp-replacing resin composite restorations with a mean follow-up of 14 years

ObjectivesThe objective is to evaluate the long-term clinical survival and performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations replacing cusps in vital upper premolars.MethodsBetween 2001 and 2007, 176 upper premolars in 157 patients were restored with 92 direct and 84 indirect resin composite restorations as part of an RCT. Inclusion criteria were fracture of the buccal or palatal cusp of vital upper premolars along with a class II cavity or restoration in the same tooth.ResultsForty patients having 23 direct and 22 indirect composite restorations respectively, were lost to follow-up (25.6%). The cumulative Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 63.6% (mean observation time: 15.3 years, SE 5.6%) with an AFR of 2.4% for direct restorations and 54.5% (mean observation time: 13.9 years, SE: 6.4%) with an AFR of 3.3% for indirect restorations. The Cox regression analysis revealed a statistically significant influence of the patient’s age at placement on the survival of the restoration (HR 1.036, p = 0.024), the variables gender, type of upper premolar, type of restoration, and which cusp involved in the restoration had no statistically significant influence. Direct composite restorations failed predominantly due to tooth fracture, indirect restorations primarily by adhesive failure (p < 0.05).SignificanceThere was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between direct and indirect composite cusp-replacing restorations. Both direct and indirect resin composite cusp-replacing restorations are suitable options to restore compromised premolars. The longer treatment time and higher costs for the indirect restoration argue in favor of the direct technique.     

Influence of enamel wetness on resin composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents: part I-effects on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of enamel wetness on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation using various dentine bonding adhesives; and to determine the changes of marginal quality and enamel microcracks over time. METHODS: Forty extracted molars were each prepared with a cylindrical cavity and divided into five groups. Groups 1-4 were acid-etched and treated separately with either an ethanol-based adhesive (Single Bond) or an acetone-based adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) on either dry or wet enamel. Teeth in Group 5 were treated with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Epoxy replicas of different stages were taken after cavity preparation, after restoration, after 24 h storage, and after thermocycling test. These replicas were examined under a scanning electron microscope for their restorative marginal quality and enamel microcrack. Quantitative measurement was performed to measure the length ratio of different margin patterns, and enamel microcracks. RESULTS: There was no difference in the marginal quality when ethanol-base adhesive was applied on dry or wet dentin. The group using acetone-based adhesive on the dry enamel presented higher intact margin ratio than the group on wet enamel did only after restoration. Using self-etching primer led to higher open margin ratio at all stages. Enamel microcracks were found in all five groups and were higher in groups using acetone-based adhesives. CONCLUSION: Enamel wetness did not show a significantly adverse effect on the marginal quality of the restorations using either acetone- or ethanol-based adhesive. Using self-etching adhesive may lead to high incidence of margin deterioration.     

Two-year evaluation of Class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations

Restorations made of a combination of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and composite resin (CR) – open sandwich fillings – have been recommended for use in proximal boxes of molar cavities. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical behaviour over time of RMGIC/CR sandwich restorations versus CR restorations in Class II molar cavities. During a period of 2 years, a total of 220 restorations were placed in 118 patients by one operator (VV). A random block allocation was used to allocate cavities to one of the two restorative techniques. Bitewing radiographs and photographs were taken at baseline and at annual recall appointments. At present, a total of 210 restorations have been evaluated after 1 year and 141 restorations after 2 years. All restorations were evaluated using a modification of USPHS criteria. A total of three RMGIC/CR and two CR restorations (2.8%) were rated as failures caused by endodontic complications or major fractures. Twenty-eight teeth were reported to have postoperative sensitivity at the baseline evaluation 1 week following placement. Nine RMGIC/CR (8.5%) and four CR (4.9%) restorations with minor fractures were rated Charlie but were still acceptable. Bitewing radiographs revealed progression of carious lesions in proximal surfaces of originally intact or restored teeth adjacent to five (5.9%) RMGIC/CR restorations and eight (10.9%) CR restorations. No statistically significant differences between the two types of restoration were observed with respect to marginal adaptation, discoloration and caries progression. However, a higher number of large CR fillings exhibited postoperative sensitivity at baseline compared to moderate CR or extensive and moderate RMGIC/CR restorations. Received: 28. January 2000 / Accepted: 8 May 2000     

Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the clinical performance and marginal adaptation of direct and semi-direct class II composite restorations in a split-mouth design over 3.5 years. DESIGN: 44 upper posterior teeth in 11 adults with primary carious lesions were treated with 22 direct and 22 semi-direct restorations. Conventional cavities were prepared for both types of restorations. A fine fine hybrid composite (APH) and a multifunctional adhesive system (Prisma universal bond 3) were used for all restorations. The incremental "3-sited light curing" technique was applied to direct restorations. Semi-direct inlays were prefabricated on silicone casts and post-cured using light and heat. Clinical performance was evaluated using modified USPHS parameters, while marginal adaptation was judged on replicas, using SEM and a standardized evaluation technique. RESULTS: Clinical results after 3.5 years revealed a 100% retention rate with no fractures, sensitivity or recurrent caries for both types of restorations. SEM-evaluation of the occlusal margins showed at the tooth-restoration interface relatively low rates of marginal openings over the observation period (4-8%). Marginal restoration fractures ranged between 1 and 2%, marginal tooth fractures between 3 and 9%. Differences between the restorative techniques and after the different time observation periods were not statistically significant. Proportions of marginal fractures and openings at the restoration-luting composite interface were less than 10% after 3.5 years. CONCLUSION: The results indicated no significant differences for direct and semi-direct fine hybrid composite restorations in medium size cavities in posterior teeth with respect to clinical performance and marginal adaptation over 3.5 years.     

The effect of ultrasonic cleaning and air polishing on the marginal integrity of radicular amalgam and composite resin restorations

Abstract This study attempts to put at ease some uncertainty of a possible damaging effect of ultrasonic scaling and air polishing procedures on dental restorations (amalgam and composite resin). Under optimal in vitro conditions, the margins of 120 restorations were subject to thorough ultrasonic and air polishing instrumentation in order to mimic those extensively used in periodontal treatments. Light-cure composite resin and Dispersalloy amalgam alloy were used to restore class V cavities at the CEJ. After being exposed to ultrasonic scaling and air polishing, cleaning, and thermocycling, clinical evaluation of the cavity margins and microleakage examination showed no detrimental effects of these procedures.     

Clinical and quantitative marginal analysis of feldspathic ceramic inlays at 4 years

The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate feldspathic ceramic inlays both by clinical criteria and quantitative margin analysis in continuation of an earlier, identically conducted 2-year study. Fifty feldspathic ceramic inlays were adhesively luted in Class II preparations with all margins located in enamel. The inlays were evaluated clinically according to modified USPHS criteria after 3 and 4 years. Quantitative margin analysis was performed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Clinically, the inlays showed no recurrent caries and no changes in colour, but superficial marginal discolouration (6%) was apparent after 4 years. Margins were perceptible clinically in 64% of the cases after 4 years. Quantitative margin analysis showed significantly more marginal gaps at the composite/ceramic interface than at the enamel/composite interface. There was neither a significant decrease in perfect margins nor a significant increase in marginal gaps and marginal imperfections at both interfaces between the third and fourth year. Clinically, the inlays performed very well up to 4 years. Clinical evaluation using an explorer only detected substance loss in the cementation gap. The SEM evaluation showed significantly higher changes in marginal qualities during the first 2-year interval of clinical service compared to the second 2-year interval following an exponential mathematical regularity. Quantitative margin analysis should be included in clinical long-term trials to detect early marginal deficiencies at the luting interfaces. Received: 1 September 1997 / Accepted: 31 October 1997