The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review (original) (raw)
Related papers
Polymers
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin in composite restorations. A bibliographic search was carried out until May 2020, in the biomedical databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and Web of Science. The study selection criteria were: randomized clinical trials, in English, with no time limit, with a follow-up greater than or equal to 6 months and that reported the clinical effects (absence of fractures, absence of discoloration or marginal staining, adequate adaptation marginal, absence of post-operative sensitivity, absence of secondary caries, adequate color stability and translucency, proper surface texture, proper anatomical form, adequate tooth integrity without wear, adequate restoration integrity, proper occlusion, absence of inflammation and adequate point of contact) of restorations made with conventional and bulk resins. The risk of bias of the study was analyzed us...
2018
ObjectivesThe purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composites with conventional resin composites used for direct restorations of posterior teeth.MethodsThis review followed the PRISMA statement. This review was registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016053436). A search of the scientific literature was performed by two independent reviewers using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from commencement until January 2018. The research question was “Do bulk-fill resin composites have a clinical performance comparable to conventional resin composites in posterior restorations?” Only studies evaluating class I and II direct restorations in permanent teeth with a follow-up period of at least 1 year were included. The RevMan 5 program was used for meta-analysis, calculating the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the dichotomous outcome (restoration failure or succ...
European Journal of Dentistry
Objective This study was aimed to compare the 12-month clinical performance of two full-body bulk-fill resin composites Filtek bulk fill/3M ESPE (FBF) and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill/Ivoclar Vivadent (TBF) and a conventional microhybrid resin composite Filtek Z250/3M ESPE (Z250) using the modified the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Also, the agreement between the two evaluation criteria was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up. Materials and Methods A total of 138 class I and II restorations were placed in posterior teeth (split-mouth design) of 46 volunteers following manufacturer’s instructions and bonded with a self-etching bonding agent (Clear fill SE Bond/Kuraray). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up by three previously calibrated dentists (Cohen’s K = 0.84). Statistical Analysis Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test were used to evaluating t...
Clinical Outcomes of Bulk-Fill versus Layered Resin Composite Restorations
Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of class II restored with Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill, Filtek bulk-fill resin composite, and layered Filtek Z250 resin composite restorations. Materials and Methods: Thirty class II cavities were prepared. The cavities were randomly divided into three groups (n=10) according to the restorative material used (Tetric Evoceram Bulk fill, Filtek bulk-fill and Filtek Z250). The patients were recalled at 6 months and restorations were evaluated using Modified United State Public Health Criteria (USPHS). Results: No statistically significant difference between all the tested restorative materials. Conclusions: Bulk fill restorative materials (Tetric Evoceram bulk fill & Filtek bulk-fill) showed clinical outcomes like that of conventional resin based composite.
Research, Society and Development, 2021
With the increasing acceptance of the clinical use of bulk-fill resins, it is necessary to investigate the in vivo performance of these restorative materials. In this perspective, this systematic review to evaluate the clinical performance of Bulk-fill resins in restorations of vital, primary and permanent posterior teeth. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, LILACS, BBO and Capes publications search base were searched without restriction regarding the year of publication or language of the article. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of resins composed of bulk-fill compared to the incremental technique. For the selection of articles and data extraction, two calibrated evaluators evaluated abstracts and complete articles. A total of 1443 abstracts were identified, of which 14 articles were included in the review. Of these, 01 was classified with a high level of evidence; 08 were moderate and 05 with a low level of evidence. The studies presented an average f...
Australian dental journal, 2016
Composites are increasing in popularity as restorative materials. This growing role indicates the necessity of studies on their clinical outcome. Clinical studies published on the performance of posterior composite restorations were included except those of less than a 24-month assessment period. Results of non-vital, anterior or primary teeth and cervical-single-surface restorations were also excluded. Records about composite type, number of final recall restorations, failure/survival rate, and assessment period and failure reasons were analyzed for each decade. Overall survival/failure rates for studies in 1995-2005 were 89.41%/10.59% and for 2006-2016 were 86.87%/13.13% respectively. In 1995-2005 the reasons for failure were secondary caries (29.47%) and composite-fracture (28.84%) with low tooth-fracture (3.45%) compared to reasons of failure in 2006-2016, which were secondary caries (25.68%), composite-fracture (39.07%), and tooth-fracture (23.76%). An increase in incidence of ...
Australian Dental Journal, 2017
Composites are increasing in popularity as restorative materials. This growing role indicates the necessity of studies on their clinical outcome. In this study, clinical studies published on the performance of posterior composite restorations were included except those of less than a 24-month assessment period. Results of non-vital, anterior or primary teeth and cervical single-surface restorations were also excluded. Records about composite type, number of final recall restorations, failure/survival rate, assessment period and failure reasons were analysed for each decade. Overall survival/failure rates for studies in 1995-2005 were 89.41%/10.59% and for 2006-2016 were 86.87%/13.13%, respectively. In 1995-2005, the reasons for failure were secondary caries (29.47%) and composite fracture (28.84%) with low tooth fracture (3.45%) compared with reasons of failure in 2006-2016, which were secondary caries (25.68%), composite fracture (39.07%), and tooth fracture (23.76%). An increase in incidence of composite fracture, tooth fracture and need for endodontic treatment as failure reasons was noted in the latter decade in addition to a decrease in secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, unsatisfactory marginal adaptation and wear. The overall rates of failure showed little difference, but the causes showed a notable change. This is believed to be a reflection of increased use of composites for larger restorations and possibly changes of material characteristics.
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University Journal, 2018
The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill composite resin with that of layered composite resin restorations in occlusal class I cavity of permanent molar teeth. This study includes a total of 104 teeth having class I cavity of 3-4 mm depth in the occlusal surface. They were restored either with layered composite resin or bulk-fill composite resin of 52 teeth in each group. To observe the retention, marginal adaptation and color match, all restorations were assessed by using modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) or Ryge’s criteria at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. The results of 12 months observation showed that retention of 38 layered composite and 48 bulk-fill composite resin restorations revealed alpha rating, which was statistically significant. The marginal adaptation of 37 layered composite resin and 47 bulk-fill composite resin restorations also demonstrated alpha rating and the differences between two groups were stat...
European Journal of Oral Sciences, 2017
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.
Journal of Dentistry, 1993
The principals of 26 general dental practices agreed to use six chemically activated resin composite restorative materials to restore Class III and Class V lesions and record information concerning their performance over a period of 5 years. The information collected was analysed by actuarial methods to assess the clinical longevity and reasons for replacement as perceived by the dentists operating in the General Dental Service in England. At the end of 5 years, 14 dentists provided sufficient returns for their data to be considered suitable for analysis. The database consisted of 2399 Class III and 1093 Class Vrestorations. The overall probability of survival at 5 years of Class III and Class V restorations was 62.9% and 71.8% respectively. The difference in performance between the six restorative materials was small, with the probability of survival varying from 70.4 f 2.9% to 56.3 k 2.9% for the Class III restorations and 78.6 + 3.7% to 67.7 f 4.2% for the Class V restorations. The main reasons for replacement were general surface discoloration, secondary caries and fracture. The chemically activated composite restorative materials available at the time of initiating this study produced comparable performances in general dental practice when used without enamel and dentine bonding techniques. This suggests that more general practice-based clinical studies are needed to determine whether or not improvements in materials and techniques are effectively transferred to the general practice situation.