Search

Objectives: To answer the PICO(S) question: Is there a difference in clinical longevity between direct and indirect resin composite restorations placed on permanent posterior teeth?, Data: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating direct and indirect resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth were considered., Sources: Several electronic databases were searched, with no language or date restrictions. The revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB-2) was used to analyze the studies; meta-analyses were run and the certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE tool. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed for resin composite restorations placed on posterior worn dentition., Study Selection: Twenty-three articles were included in qualitative synthesis, while 8 studies were used for meta-analyses. According to the RoB-2 tool, 5 studies were ranked as "low risk", 7 had "some concerns", while 11 papers were rated as "high risk" of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in short-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.54, 95% CI [0.72, 3.33]), medium-term (p = 0.27; RR=1.87, 95% CI [0.61, 5.72]) and long-term longevity (p = 0.86; RR=0.95, 95% CI [0.57, 1.59]). The choice of restorative technique had no influence on short-term survival of resin composite restorations placed on worn dentition (p = 0.13; RR=0.46, 95% CI [0.17, 1.25]). The certainty of evidence was rated as "very low"., Conclusions: Direct and indirect resin composite restorations may show similar clinical longevity in posterior region, regardless of the observation period or substrate (wear-affected and non-affected dentition). The very low quality of evidence suggests that more long-term RCTs are needed to confirm our results., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim was to develop bone composites with similar working times, faster polymerisation and higher final conversion in comparison to Cortoss™. Additionally, low shrinkage/heat generation and improved short and longer-term mechanical properties are desirable., Methods: Four urethane dimethacrylate based composites were prepared using tri-ethylene-glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) or polypropylene dimethacrylate (PPGDMA) diluent and 0 or 20 wt% fibres in the glass filler particles. FTIR was used to determine reaction kinetics, final degrees of conversions, and polymerisation shrinkage/heat generation at 37 °C. Biaxial flexural strength, Young's modulus and compressive strength were evaluated after 1 or 30 days in water., Results: Experimental materials all had similar inhibition times to Cortoss™ (140 s) but subsequent maximum polymerisation rate was more than doubled. Average experimental composite final conversion (76%) was higher than that of Cortoss™ (58%) but with less heat generation and shrinkage. Replacement of TEGDMA by PPGDMA gave higher polymerisation rates and conversions while reducing shrinkage. Early and aged flexural strengths of Cortoss™ were 93 and 45 MPa respectively. Corresponding compressive strengths were 164 and 99 MPa. Early and lagged experimental composite flexural strengths were 164-186 and 240-274 MPa whilst compressive strengths were 240-274 MPa and 226-261 MPa. Young's modulus for Cortoss™ was 3.3 and 2.2 GPa at 1 day and 1 month. Experimental material values were 3.4-4.8 and 3.0-4.1 GPa, respectively. PPGDMA and fibres marginally reduced strength but caused greater reduction in modulus. Fibres also made the composites quasi-ductile instead of brittle., Significance: The improved setting and higher strengths of the experimental materials compared to Cortoss™, could reduce monomer leakage from the injection site and material fracture, respectively. Lowering modulus may reduce stress shielding whilst quasi-ductile properties may improve fracture tolerance. The modified dental composites could therefore be a promising approach for future bone cements., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)