Search

Objective: This study aimed to determine the survival of class II composite restorations in premolars and molars with and without base bulk-fill composite in general dental practice. Materials and methods: We collected data from the electronic patient files of the Public Dental Services in the City of Oulu, Finland. The timespan of data collection was from August 15th, 2002, to August 9th, 2018. The data consisted of class II composite restorations both with and without base bulk-fill composite. We compared the survival of these restorations using Kaplan–Meier survival curves, the log-rank test, survival rates, and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Results: We observed 297 restorations in 96 patients. The five-year survival rates for restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite were comparable in premolars (77.5% and 77.4%, respectively) but different in molars (69.9% and 57.8%, respectively, p = 0.069). In molars, the restorations with base bulk-fill composite exhibited a higher survival rate in 14 patients, whereas in 11 patients the restorations without base bulk-fill composites exhibited a higher survival rate. In 24 patients the survival rates were similar for restorations with and without the base bulk-fill composite (p = 0.246). Conclusions: The restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite had similar longevity. Clinical relevance: Base bulk-fill composites are safe to use in general practice due to their similar survival rates compared to conventional composites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Publications on stamp techniques for placing resin-based composite (RBC) restorations consist mainly of case studies. Furthermore, comparative studies are rare and no longer relevant to the materials tested today. Thus, two general techniques were investigated in this study. Materials and methods: Standardized occlusion class I cavities were prepared in twenty-eight extracted caries-free wisdom teeth with unimpaired occlusal surfaces and restored with the RBC material Grandio®. Light curing of the final layer was performed either after removal of the stamp isolated with PTFE tape or by leaving a stamp made of transparent polysiloxane in place. CEREC scans of the RBC restorations placed (follow-up) were superimposed on scans of the unimpaired occlusal surface (baseline) and quantitatively analyzed with the software OraCheck with regard to volume change and gain or loss of layer thickness in six sectional planes. Results: Assessing the excess material, there was no difference (p = 0.31) between the silicone technique (0.26 mm ± 0.02) and the PTFE technique (0.22 mm ± 0.02 mm). Nevertheless, the loss of tooth substance was significantly greater (p < 0.001) with the silicone technique (−0.29 mm ± 0.02 mm) than with the PTFE technique (−0.15 mm ± 0.02 mm). Conclusions: With the PTFE stamp technique, less healthy tooth structure was removed during the finishing procedure and the stamp was more dimensionally stable. Clinical relevance: The study shows the advantages and disadvantages of the investigated stamp techniques and helps the practitioner to choose an appropriate technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aims of this study were (i) to assess cumulative survival rates of class II resin-based composite and compomer restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period and (ii) to analyze the influence of different types of anesthesia and different localizations of the restorations in the teeth. Methods: Patient charts of a private practice for pediatric dentistry were screened for class II resin-based composite (Spectrum TPH3) and compomer (Dyract Posterior; both Dentsply DeTrey) restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period used with Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M-ESPE). One restoration per patient (age ≤ 6 years at placement) was randomly selected. Results: Two hundred sixty restorations were included (43% resin-based composites, 57% compomers). After 5 years, cumulative survival rates were 43% for resin-based composite and 49% for compomer restorations with no statistically significant differences. There was a tendency for higher survival rates for restorations placed under N2O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia. Distal-occlusal compomer restorations showed significantly lower survival rates (p = 0.003) as compared to mesial-occlusal compomer restorations. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, we conclude that type of restorative material as well as the type of anesthesia do not influence restoration survival rates, although restorations placed in patients receiving N2O inhalation sedation or general anesthesia tend to perform better as compared with patients receiving no anesthesia or only local infiltration. Clinical relevance: Resin-based composite and compomer restorations show similar survival rates of more than 43% (annual failure rates less than 11.5%) after 5 years for restoration of primary molars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study compared the 3-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite material with that of a methacrylate-based composite material in the restoration of endodontically treated premolar teeth. Materials and methods: A total of 70 patients requiring a Class II composite-resin restoration of a premolar tooth following root-canal treatment participated in the study. Cavities were restored with either a silorane-based restorative (Filtek Silorane + Silorane System Adhesive) or a methacrylate-based restorative (Filtek Z250 + Clearfil SE Bond) system applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded observers at five different time intervals (baseline; 6 months; 1, 2, and 3 years) according to modified USPHS criteria. Pearson's chi-square tests were used to examine differences in the clinical performance of the materials (retention, color match, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness), and Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare changes between baseline and each recall time, with a level of 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: After 3 years, no statistically significant differences in clinical performance were observed between the two materials (p > 0.05). Intra-system comparisons revealed a statistically significant deterioration in color match, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness scores after 3 years for both systems. Although the difference was not significant at 3 years of follow-up, the level of deterioration in marginal adaptation and surface roughness was greater for the Filtek Silorane restoration than for the Filtek Z250 restoration at the 1 year follow-up (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 3 years. The Filtek Silorane system did not appear to offer any clinical advantages over the methacrylate-based system when used in the restoration of Class II cavities in endodontically treated premolars. Clinical relevance: The restoration of endodontically treated premolars with minor or moderate loss of tooth structure can be directly performed either with silorane or methacrylate-based composite resins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study compared the effects of mold material and diameter on the thickness of cured composite remnants and depth of cure (DOC) of resin-based composites (RBC). Material and methods: One Polywave® curing light was used to photo-cure two shades of the same 'bulk-fill' RBC in 4, 6, or 10-mm internal diameter metal or white Delrin® molds. For 60 specimens, the uncured RBC was manually scraped away as described in the ISO 4049 depth of cure test. The remaining 60 specimens were immersed in tetrahydrofuran for 48 hours in the dark. Maximum lengths of remaining hard RBC and their DOC values were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey-Kramer post hoc multiple comparison tests (α = 0.05). Results: Specimen thickness and DOC were always greater using the white Delrin® molds compared to metal molds ( p < 0.001). Increase in mold diameter significantly increased specimen thickness and DOC when made in the metal molds and in the 6-mm diameter Delrin® molds ( p < 0.01). Increasing the diameter of the Delrin® molds to 10-mm did not increase specimen thickness or DOC. Sectioning and staining of specimens revealed an internal, peripheral transition zone of porous RBC in the solvent-dissolved specimens only. Conclusion: Mold material and internal diameter significantly influenced cured composite remnant thickness as well as depth of cure. The existence of an outer region of RBC that is hard, yet susceptible to solvent dissolution, requires further investigation. Clinical relevance: The depth of cure results obtained from a 4-mm diameter metal mold may not represent the true potential for evaluating composite depth of cure. A universally acceptable mold material and diameter size need to be established if this type of testing is to be useful for evaluating the relative performance of a given type of LCU and RBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite material (Filtek™ Silorane, 3 M-Espe) by comparing it with a methacrylate-based composite material (Ceram•X™, Dentsply DeTrey). Material and methods: A number of 72patients (158 restorations) participated in the study. After 5 years, a total of 107 restorations (52 Filtek™ Silorane, 55 Ceram•X™) in 48 patients were evaluated. Only class II restorations were included. All the restorations were placed by the same dentist, and the restorations were scored by one experienced dentist/evaluator. Materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. The primary outcome was marginal adaptation. Secondary outcomes were: marginal discoloration, approximal contact, anatomic form, fracture, secondary caries, and hypersensitivity. Results: After 5 years, no statistically significant differences between the two materials were found in marginal adaptation either occlusally ( p = 0.96) or approximally ( p = 0.62). No statistically significant differences were found between the two materials in terms of approximal contact, anatomic form, fractures, or discoloration. Secondary caries was found in two teeth (Filtek™ Silorane). One tooth showed hypersensitivity (Ceram•X™). Conclusion: Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 5 years. This study did not find any advantage of the silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite, which indicates that the low-shrinkage of Filtek™ Silorane may not be a determinant factor for clinical success in class II cavities. Clinical relevance: This paper is the first to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]