In Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Direct Class II Composite Restorations Made of Different “Low-Shrinkage” Systems (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Dentistry, 2005
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.
Operative Dentistry, 2013
A literature review was conducted on adhesive Class I and II restorations and nondestructive in vitro tests using the PubMed/Medline database for the 1995-2010 period. The first part of this review has presented and critically appraised selected literature dealing with the quality and in vitro behavior of adhesive Class II restorations using photoelasticity, finite element analysis, and microleakage study protocols. This second part reviews additional parameters, which are deformation and fracture resistance to cyclic loading, shrinkage stress and tooth deformation following restoration placement, bond strength (microtensile, tensile, and shear tests), and marginal and internal adaptation. In addition, a "relevance score" has been proposed that aims to classify the different study protocols according, firstly, to the resulting quality, quantity, and consistency of the evidence and then, secondly, to their potential clinical relevance, as estimated by their ability to simulate oral and biomechanical strains. The highest clinical relevance was attributed to marginal and internal adaptation studies, following cyclic loading in a moist environement. However, a combination of in vitro protocols will have an even greater predictive potential and has to be considered as a crucial preclinical research approach with which to investigate the numerous restorative configurations that cannot be efficiently and rapidly tested in vivo.
The aim of the study was to assess the clinical performance of class II composite resins restorations performed using different restorative techniques. Materials and methods The study group included 37 patients aged between 18-42 years. A number of 60 class II direct restorations were performed by a single practitioner using adhesive preparation design with margin bevelling and hybrid composite resin Herculite XRV (Kerr) as restorative material. The teeth included in the study were divided in three groups (n=20) accordingly to restorative technique: I. centripetal build-up; II. oblique layering technique; III. horizontal layering technique. The class II composite resins restorations were assessed after 12 months using United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. Results and discussions The centripetal build-up technique presented the score A for marginal adaptation in 60%, for marginal discoloration in 70% and for anatomical form in 80% of the restorations. The horizontal layering technique presents the score A for marginal adaptation in 40%, for marginal discoloration in 50% and for anatomical form in 50% of the restorations. The oblique layering technique presented the score A for marginal adaptation in 80%, for marginal discoloration in 90% and for anatomical form in 60% of the restorations. Conclusions Statistical differences between groups were found regarding marginal adaptation (oblique layering technique versus horizontal layering technique), marginal discoloration (oblique layering technique versus horizontal layering technique) and anatomical form (centripetal build-up technique versus horizontal layering technique).
Operative Dentistry, 2010
The current study compared the marginal adaptation of Class II open-sandwich restorations with a RMGIC versus a dual-cure composite as dentin substitute. Class II cavities were prepared on 50 extracted human third molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to two groups of 25 teeth to compare one dual cure composite (MultiCore Flow) with one resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Fuji II LC) in open-sandwich restorations recovered with a light cure composite. The teeth were thermomechanocycled (2000 cycles, 5°C to 55°C; 100,000 cycles, 50 N/cm 2). The specimens were then sealed with a 1 mm window around the cervical margin interface. Samples were immersed in a 50% w/v ammoniacal silver nitrate solution for two hours and exposed to a photo-developing solution for six hours. The specimens were sectioned longitudinally and silver penetration was directly measured using a light microscope. The results were expressed as a score from 0 to 3. The data were analyzed with a non-parametric Kruskal and Wallis test.
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019
Objective This prospective study evaluated the clinical performance of large class II restorations made with different techniques over 24 months. Materials and methods Thirty patients received two class II restorations (n = 60) using a nanohybrid composite and different restorative techniques (direct (DT), semidirect (SDT)), in a split-mouth randomized design. The same adhesive system was applied for all restorations. For DT, the restorative material was applied directly inside the tooth preparation. For SDT, a tooth preparation impression was obtained using alginate and a silicone flexible die was prepared. The restoration was made chairside on the model and additionally light cured. After that, it was cemented in preparation using resinous cement. All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after 7 days, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results After 24 months, 24 patients attended the recall and 48 restorations were evaluated. Fisher's statistical analysis (5%) showed no difference between the techniques. Nevertheless, Friedman's test showed significant differences for some criteria after 12 months of evaluation for both techniques. Postoperative sensitivity was reported in one DT restoration. Also, after 24 months, one SDT restoration presented marginal fracture, which was deemed unsatisfactory. Conclusions After a 24-month follow-up, no significant difference between the tested techniques was detected. The restorations performed with both techniques produced clinically acceptable restorations. Clinical relevance This study demonstrated the viability of applying two different operatory techniques (direct and semidirect) for class II resin composite restorations.
Operative Dentistry, 2019
SUMMARYPurpose:The aim of this prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate postoperative sensitivity, clinical performance, and interproximal contacts after using different restorative systems.Methods and Materials:Fifty-three subjects each received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional resin composite (PA: Peak Universal+Amelogen Plus, Ultradent), low-shrinkage flowable and nanoparticulate resin composites (ABF: Adper Single Bond 2+Filtek Bulk Fill Flow+Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE), and low-shrinkage flowable and microhybrid resin composites (XST: XP Bond+SDR+TPH3, Dentsply). Postoperative sensitivity was assessed at 24 hours, seven days, 90 days, and six months. The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated at baseline, six months, and one year. Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate postoperative sensitivity and interproximal contacts. The equality test of tw...
56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations
Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB
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. 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). 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, ...
Dental Materials, 1990
The aim of this study was to evaluate conservative preparation designs for therestoration of Class II lesions with posterior resin composite. Fourteen primary and 14 permanent molars were obtained. Consenvative modified MO and DO preparations were placed in half the teeth; conventional MO and DO preparations were placed in the remaining teeth. Randomly, a glass-ionomer liner was placed over the exposed dentin in one preparation of each tooth; a calcium hydroxide liner was placed in the remaining preparations. Posterior resin composite was placed in all teeth, and the teeth were loaded with a 17-kg force. Teeth were thermocycled, stored in 37°C water, then immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution and placed in developer. The teeth were sectioned and photographed. Microleakage was calculated according to the depth of dye penetration, on a 6-degree scale. Results demonstrated the conservative modified restorations and conventional restorations, when glass-ionomer liner was used, to have less marginal microleakage, in both primary and permanent teeth, than their calcium hydroxide counterparts.