Search

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the short time clinical behaviour of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), which is claimed to possess bioactivity, in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a nanofilled resin composite. METHODS: Totally 78 pairs Class II and 4 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 29 female and 38 male participants with a mean age of 58.3 years (range 37-86). Each patient received at random at least one pair of, as similar as possible, Class II or Class I restorations. In the first cavity of each pair, the modified flowable RMGIC (ACTIVA Bioactive; AB) was placed after phosphoric acid etching of the cavity and without adhesive, according to the instructions of the manufacturer. In the other cavity a well established nanofilled resin composite (CeramX; RC) with a single step self-etch adhesive (Xeno Select) was placed. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated. RESULTS: 158 restorations, 8 Class I and 150 Class II, were evaluated at the one year recalls. At baseline two failed restorations were observed (2AB), at 6 months six failures (5AB, 1RC) and at 12 months another thirteen failed restorations were observed (12AB, 1RC). This resulted in annual failure rates of 24.1% for the AB and 2.5% for RC (p<0.0001). The main reasons for failure for AB were lost restorations (5), postoperative symptoms (4) and secondary caries (3). Do to the unacceptable very high one-year failure frequency, the clinical study was stopped and no further evaluation will be performed. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of the AB restorative in Class II cavities, applied as instructed by the manufacturer after a short phosphoric acid pretreatment but without adhesive system, resulted in a non-acceptable very high failure frequency after a one year

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled prospective trial was to evaluate the durability of a low shrinkage and TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system in posterior restorations in a 6-year follow up. METHODS: 139 Class II restorations were placed in 67 patients with a mean age of 53 years (range 29-82). Each participant received at random two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations. In the first cavity of each pair the TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system was placed with its 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (cmf-els). In the second cavity a 1-step HEMA-free self-etch adhesive was used (AdheSe One F). The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 6 years. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated. RESULTS: Three molar teeth showed mild post-operative sensitivity during 3 weeks for temperature changes and occlusal forces. After 6 years, 134 Class II restorations were evaluated. Twenty-one restorations, 8 cmf-els (11.4%) and 13 ASE-els (20%) failed during the 6 years (p<0.0001). The annual failure rates were 1.9% and 3.3%, respectively. The main reasons for failure were fracture followed by recurrent caries. Most fractures and all caries lesions were found in high risk participants. SIGNIFICANCE: The Class II resin composite restorations performed with the new TEGDMA/HEMA-free low shrinkage resin composite system showed good durability over six years.

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.

Purpose: To evaluate in a randomized clinical evaluation the 3-year clinical durability of a one-step universal adhesive and compare it intraindividually with a 2-step self-etch adhesive in Class II restorations. Materials and Methods: Each of 57 participants (mean age 58.3 years) received at least two extended Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. The cavities in each of the 60 individual pairs of cavities were randomly distributed to the 1-step universal adhesive (All-Bond Universal: AU) and the control 2-step self-etch adhesive (Optibond XTR: OX). A low shrinkage composite (Aelite LS) was used for all restorations, which were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 years. Results: 114 Class II restorations were evaluated at three years. Eight restorations, 3 AU and 5 OX, failed during the follow-up, resulting in 94.7% (AU) and 91.2% (OX) success rates (p > 0.05). Annual failure rates were 1.8% and 2.9%, respectively. The main reason for failure was composite fracture. Conclusion: Class II composite restorations placed with a 1-step universal adhesive showed good short-term efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in a randomized controlled study the 5-year clinical durability of a flowable resin composite bulk-fill technique in Class I and Class II restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 38 pairs Class I and 62 pairs Class II restorations were placed in 44 male and 42 female (mean age 52.4 years). Each patient received at least two, as similar as possible, extended Class I or Class II restorations. In all cavities, a 1-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V+) was applied. Randomized, one of the cavities of each pair received the flowable bulk-filled resin composite (SDR), in increments up to 4mm as needed to fill the cavity 2mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with the nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono+). In the other cavity, the resin composite-only (Ceram X mono+) was placed in 2mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 5 years. Caries risk and bruxing habits of the participants were estimated. RESULTS: No post-operative sensitivity was reported. At 5-year 183, 68 Class I and 115 Class II, restorations were evaluated. Ten restorations failed (5.5%), all Class II, 4 SDR-CeramX mono+ and 6 CeramX mono+-only restorations. The main reasons for failure were tooth fracture (6) and secondary caries (4). The annual failure rate (AFR) for all restorations (Class I and II) was for the bulk-filled-1.1% and for the resin composite-only restorations 1.3% (p=0.12). For the Class II restorations, the AFR was 1.4% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The stress decreasing flowable bulk-fill resin composite technique showed good durability during the 5-year follow-up. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of a 4mm incremental technique with the flowable bulk-fill resin composite showed during the 5-year follow up slightly better, but not statistical significant, durability compared to the conventional 2mm layering technique in posterior resin composite restorations.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. METHODS: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3 %) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5 %) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0 %). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 %, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. CONCLUSION: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate, in a randomized controlled cross-over study, the effect of daily intake of the alga Ascophyllum nodosum on supragingival calculus, plaque formation, and gingival health over a 6-month period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-one adults with moderate to heavy calculus formation since their last yearly recall visit participated. In a randomized order over two 6-month periods, they swallowed two capsules daily, comprising a total of 500 mg dried marine alga powder (Ascophyllum nodosum, ProDen PlaqueOff®) or two negative control tablets. During the study, the participants maintained their regular oral habits. Their teeth were professionally cleaned at the start of each period and after the 6-month registrations. A wash out period of 1 month separated the two 6-month periods. Supragingival calculus (Volpe Manhold), gingivitis (Löe and Silness), gingival bleeding (Ainamo and Bay), and plaque (Quigley-Hein) were registered at screening and at the end of the two periods. Differences in oral health between the test and control periods were analyzed using a paired t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Fifty-five participants completed the study. After the alga intake, the mean calculus reduction was 52 % compared to the control (p < 0.0001). Fifty-two participants showed less calculus formation in the alga group than in the control group. Plaque (p = 0.008) and gingival bleeding (p = 0.02) were also significantly less in the alga group. However, no significant difference was found between the groups for gingivitis (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The alga intake significantly reduced the formation of supragingival calculus and plaque and occurrence of gingival bleeding. The alga has a systemic effect on oral health. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Daily intake of the alga Ascophyllum nodosum as an adjunct to customary oral hygiene showed a major reduction of supragingival calculus formation and reduced plaque formation. In addition, the cal

Purpose: To evaluate the 3-year clinical durability of the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in Class I and Class II restorations. Materials and Methods: Thirty-eight pairs of Class I and 62 pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 44 male and 42 female patients (mean age 52.4 years). Each patient received at least two extended Class I or Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. In all cavities, a one-step self-etching adhesive (XenoV+) was applied. One of the cavities of each pair was randomly assigned to receive the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with an ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono+). In the other cavity, only the resin composite CeramX mono+ was placed in 2 mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 3 years. Caries risk and bruxing habits of the participants were estimated. Results: No post-operative sensitivity was reported. At the 3-year follow-up, 196 restorations - 74 Class I and 122 Class II - were evaluated. Seven restorations failed (3.6%), 4 SDR-CeramX mono+ and 3 CeramX mono+ only restorations, all of which were Class II. The main reason for failure was tooth fracture, followed by resin composite fracture. The annual failure rate (AFR) for all restorations (Class I and II) was 1.2% for the bulk filled restorations and 1.0% for the resin composite-only restorations (p > 0.05). For the Class II restorations, the AFR was 2.2% and 1.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The 4-mm bulk-fill technique showed good clinical effectiveness during the 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the durability of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations during 27 years. METHODS: Thirty participants, 25 female and 5 male (mean age 38.2 yrs, range 25-63), received at least three (one set) as similar as possible Class II restorations of moderate size. The three cavities were chosen at random to be restored with a chemical-cured (Clearfil Posterior) and two visible light-cured resin composites (Adaptic II, Occlusin). A chemical-cured enamel bonding agent (Clearfil New Bond) was applied after Ca(OH)2 covering of dentin and enamel etch. Marginal sealing of the restorations was performed after finishing. One operator placed 99 restorations (33 sets). Evaluation was performed with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 2, 3, 10 and 27 years. RESULTS: Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 5 patients. Three participants with 11 restorations (11%) could not be evaluated at the 27 year recall. Thirty-seven restorations failed (13 AII, 10CP and 14 O). The overall success rate after 27 years was 56.5% (AII 55.2%, CP 63.0%, O 51.7%; p=0.70), with an annual failure rate of 1.6%. The main reason for failure was secondary caries (54.1%), followed by occlusal wear (21.6%) and material fracture (18.9%). Non-acceptable color match was seen in 24 (28.3%) of the restorations (AII 2, CP 16, O 6). Cox regression-analysis showed significant influence of the covariates tooth type, caries risk, and bruxing activity of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Class II restorations of the three conventional resin composites showed an acceptable success rate during the 27 year evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized controlled study was to evaluate the long term effectiveness of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite in Class II restorations. The material was compared intra-individually with a microhybrid resin composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each of 50 patients with at least one pair of two similar sized Class II cavities participated (22 female, 28 male, mean age 43 years, range 18-64). Each participant received in each pair, in a randomized way, one Class II restoration performed with a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite (InTen-S) and the other restoration with a microhybrid resin composite restoration (Point 4). Both restorations were placed with an etch-and-rinse bonding system and an oblique layering technique. A total of 106 restorations, 33 premolar and 73 molars, were placed. The restorations were evaluated blindly each year using modified USPHS criteria. The overall performance of the experimental restorations was tested after intra-individual comparison using the Friedmańs two-way analysis of variance test. The hypothesis was rejected at the 5% level. RESULTS: At 15 years, 91 restorations were evaluated. The drop out frequency was 15 restorations (5 male, 3 female participants; 2 premolar and 13 molar restorations). Except for 2 participants, who reported slight symptoms during a few weeks after placement, no post-operative sensitivity was observed at the recalls. The overall success rate at 15 years was 77%. Twenty-one non acceptable restorations were observed during the 15 years follow up, 10 InTen-S (21.7%) and 11 Point 4 (24.4%) restorations (p>0.05). Annual failure rates for the resin composites were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively. The main reasons for failure were secondary caries (8) and resin composite fracture (7). The differences between premolar vs. molar restorations and between restorations in male vs. female participants were not significant. Significant differences were observed between 2-surface vs. 3

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this 30 year randomized controlled study was to evaluate, by intraindividual comparisons, the durability of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. METHODS: Each of 30 participants, 21 female and 9 male (mean age 30 years, range 20-43), received at least three (one set) as similar as possible Class II restorations of moderate size. After cavity preparation, the three cavities were chosen at random to be restored with two chemical-cured (P10, Miradapt) and one light-cured resin composite (P30). A chemical-cured enamel bonding agent was applied after etching of the enamel. The chemical-cured resin composites were placed in bulk and the light-cured in increments. One operator placed 99 restorations (33 sets). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years. Statistical analyses were performed by the Kaplan-Meier, log-rank test and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: After 30 years, 5 participants with 15 restorations (15%) could not be evaluated during the whole evaluation. Seven participants were considered as caries risk and eight participants as having active parafunctional habits. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 24 teeth. In total 28 restorations, 9 P10, 12 P30 and 7 Miradapt restorations failed during the 30 years. The main reasons for failure were secondary caries (39.2%) and material fracture (35.7%). Sixty-four percent of the secondary caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants and 70% of the material fractures occurred in participants with active parafunctional habits. The overall success rate at 30 years was 63%, with an annual failure rate of 1.1%. 68-81% of the restorations showed non-acceptable color match. No statistical significant difference in survival rate was found between the three resin composites (p=0.45). The variables tooth type, cavity size, age, and gender of the participants did not significantly affect the p

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted according to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The studies selected were prospective clinical trials with a minimum follow-up time of 4 years, 40 restorations per experimental group and an annual attrition rate of less than 5%. Initially, abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and the assessment was subsequently agreed on by five reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU) standard checklist for determining the extent to which studies meet basic quality criteria. Results: In all, the literature search identified 4275 abstracts and 93 articles were read in fulltext. There were eighteen studies which met the criteria for inclusion, eight of which were included in the analysis. There were 80 failures of restorations with a total follow-up time at risk for failure of 62,030 months. The overall incidence rate for all causes of failure was 1.55 lost restorations per 100 restoration years. The most common biological reason for failure (a total of 31 restorations) was secondary caries, with or without fracture of the restoration. The quality of the evidence was low. Conclusions: In an efficacy setting, the overall survival proportion of posterior resin composite restorations is high. The major reasons for failure are secondary caries and restoration fracture which supports the importance of adequate follow-up time. Clinical significance: The overall survival proportion of posterior composite restorations was high, but the results cannot be extrapolated to an effectiveness setting. The importance of adequate follow-up time is supported by the finding that secondary caries often occurred after 3 years or later.

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of ozone and fluoride varnish on occlusal caries in primary molars in a split-mouth study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Caries risk was estimated by treating Public Dental Health Service dentists. Children with occlusal caries with Ekstrand index scores ≤3 (VI ≤3) were included. Selection of caries lesions was discontinued for ethical reasons due to non-acceptable clinical results during the follow-up. In the continued evaluation pairs of teeth with non-cavitated caries lesions, Ekstrand score ≤2a (VI ≤2) were selected. Fifty pairs of carious primary molars were included, 18 boys and 15 girls (mean 4.7 years, range 3-8). At baseline, the lesions were assessed by visual inspection (VI) and laser-induced fluorescence (LF), in each pair to treatment with 40 s ozone (HealOzone(TM), 2,100 ppm) or fluoride varnish Duraphat®. The treatments and evaluations were repeated at 3, 6 9 months and evaluations only at 12 months. RESULTS: Medium-high caries risk was observed in VI ≤3 children and low-medium risk in VI ≤2a children. In the 15 pairs VI ≤3 lesions, 8 treated with ozone and 9 with fluoride progressed to failure. In the 35 pairs VI ≤2a lesions, one lesion failed. Median baseline LF values in the VI ≤3 group were 76 and 69, for ozone and fluoride lesions, respectively, and 21 and 19 in the VI ≤2a group. At 12 months, LF values in the VI ≤2a group were 15 and 18. No improvement or difference in LF values was found over time between the caries lesions treated with ozone or fluoride. CONCLUSIONS: Neither ozone nor fluoride varnish treatments stopped the progression of caries in cavitated lesions. In low and medium caries risk children, non-cavitated lesions following both treatments showed slight or no progression. The use of ozone or fluoride varnish treatments in this regime as caries preventive method, added to the daily use of fluoridated toothpaste, to arrest caries progression in primary molars must therefore be questione, Originaly published in thesis in manuscript form, by authors: Johansson, E, Karlsson, L and Andersson-Wenckert, I. Published online: 11 December 2013

Objective. The objective of this randomized controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a flowable resin composite (SDR) bulk fill technique in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a conventional 2 mm resin composite curing technique in a 3-year follow up. Materials and methods. Thirty-eight pairs Class II and 15 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 38 patients with a mean age of 55.3 years (range 32-87). Each patient received at random at least two, as similar as possible, Class II or Class I restorations of two restorative techniques. In all cavities a single step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In one of the cavities of each pair, a flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with a nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono) layer. In the second cavity, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2 mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 3 years. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated. Results. After three years, 76 Class II and 28 Class I restorations could be observed. One molar resin composite-only tooth showed post-operative sensitivity during 3 weeks for temperature changes and occlusal forces. Two failed Class II molar restorations in the resin composite-only group were observed during the first year, one cusp fracture and one resin composite fracture. An annual failure rate of 1.3% was found for the resin composite only restorations and of 0% in the bulk-filled restorations (n.s.). Ten participants were estimated as having high caries risk and eleven showed active bruxing habits. Significance. The 4 mm bulk-fill technique with the flowable resin composite SDR showed highly clinical effectiveness, which was comparable during the 3-year follow-up with the

Purpose: To evaluate the 10-year durability of a nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations in a randomized controlled intraindividual comparison with its conventional hybrid resin composite predecessor. Materials and Methods: Each of 52 participants received at least two Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. The cavities were chosen at random to be restored with a nanohybrid resin composite (Excite/Tetric EvoCeram (TEC); n = 61) and a conventional hybrid (Excite/Tetric Ceram (TC); n = 61). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 10 years. The overall performance of the experimental restorations was tested after intra-individual comparison and their ranking was tested using Friedman's two-way ANOVA. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results: Four patient drop-outs with 8 restorations (4TEC, 4TC) were registered during the follow-up. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 16 of the evaluated 52 patients were considered as high risk patients. In total, 22 restorations, 11 TEC (3 premolars, 8 molars) and 11 TC (3 premolars, 8 molars) restorations failed during the 10 years. The main reason for failure was secondary caries (50%). 63% of the recurrent caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants. The overall success rate at 10 years was 80.7%, with an annual failure rate of 1.9%. No statistically significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated resin composites. Conclusion: The nanohybrid and the conventional hybrid resin composite showed good clinical effectiveness in extensive Class II restorations during the 10-year study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a flowable resin composite (SDR) bulk fill technique in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a conventional 2mm resin composite curing technique in a 3-year follow up.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight pairs Class II and 15 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 38 patients with a mean age of 55.3 years (range 32-87). Each patient received at random at least two, as similar as possible, Class II or Class I restorations of two restorative techniques. In all cavities a single step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In one of the cavities of each pair, a flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments up to 4mm as needed to fill the cavity 2mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with a nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono) layer. In the second cavity, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 3 years. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated.RESULTS: After three years, 76 Class II and 28 Class I restorations could be observed. One molar resin composite-only tooth showed post-operative sensitivity during 3 weeks for temperature changes and occlusal forces. Two failed Class II molar restorations in the resin composite-only group were observed during the first year, one cusp fracture and one resin composite fracture. An annual failure rate of 1.3% was found for the resin composite only restorations and of 0% in the bulk-filled restorations (n.s.). Ten participants were estimated as having high caries risk and eleven showed active bruxing habits.SIGNIFICANCE: The 4mm bulk-fill technique with the flowable resin composite SDR showed highly clinical effectiveness, which was comparable during the 3-year fo

Correction of Longevity of posterior composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: A prospective 8 years follow up (vol 41, pg 297, 2013)Rättelse av Longevity of posterior composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: A prospective 8 years follow up (vol 41, pg 297, 2013)

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a one-step HEMA-free self-etching adhesive (SEA) placed with a micro-fine hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations. The restorations were compared intraindividually with 2-step HEMA containing SEA-giomer restorations. Material and methods. Fifty-four patients with at least one pair of two similar Class II cavities participated (30 men, 24 women; mean age 57.1 yrs). A total of 115 Class II composite restorations were placed with (1) a one step HEMA-free adhesive and a micro-fine hybrid resin composite (Gbond/Gradia Direct: 60; GG) and (2) a 2-step HEMA-containing SEA and a giomer (FL Bond/Beautifil: SS; FB). Each participant received in a randomized way at least one restoration with each of the experimental materials. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during a 6 year followup using modified USPHS criteria. Results. During the 6 years, 111 restorations could be evaluated. No post-operative sensitivity was reported by the participants. Fourteen failed restorations (12.6%) were observed during the follow up, 5 GG (8.5%; 4 premolar and 1 molar teeth) and 9 FB (17.7%; 1 premolar and 8 molar teeth) (p <0.05). Annual failure rate at 6 years were 1.4% for GB and 3.0% for FB. Main reasons of failure were bulk fracture of resin composite for FB and tooth fracture for GB. Signcance. The HEMA-free SEA-hybrid RC restorations showed good clinical durability in Class II cavities after 6 years. The HEMA-containing SEA-giomer restorations showed a rather high failure frequency. (C) 2013 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5 year clinical dentin bonding effectiveness of two HEMA-free adhesives in Class V non-carious cervical lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 169 Class V restorations were placed in 67 patients with a self-etching adhesive (G-Bond; 67), a 3-step HEMA and TEGDMA free etch-and-rinse (cfm; 51) and a control HEMA-containing etch-and-rinse adhesive (XP Bond; 51) in non-carious cervical lesions without intentional enamel involvement. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during a 5 year follow-up with modified USPHS criteria. Dentin bonding efficiency was determined by the percentage of lost restorations. RESULTS: During the 5 years, 159 restorations could be evaluated. Good short time dentin retention was observed for the three adhesives, there all adhesives fulfilled at 18 months the full acceptance ADA criteria. At 5 years a cumulative number of 22 lost restorations (13.8%) was observed. The HEMA-free adhesives showed significantly higher dentin retention compared to the HEMA-containing one. Loss of retention was observed for 5 G-Bond (7.9%), 4cfm (8.3%) and 13 XP Bond (27.1%) restorations (p<0.05). No post-operative sensitivity was reported by the participants. No secondary caries was observed. SIGNIFICANCE: The durability in non-carious cervical lesions of the HEMA-free adhesives was successful after 5 years. Despite concerns which have been raised, showed the 1-step SEA one of the best reported clinical dentin bonding effectiveness.

Objective: The objective of this 6 year prospective randomized equivalence trial was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a new nano-hybrid resin composite (RC) in Class II restorations in an intraindividual comparison with its well-established conventional hybrid RC predecessor. Methods: Each of 52 participants received at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations. The cavities were chosen at random to be restored with an experimental nano-hybrid RC (Exite/Tetric EvoCeram (TEC); n = 61) and a conventional hybrid RC (Exite/Tetric Ceram (TC); n = 61). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually during 6 years. Results: Two patient drop outs with 4 restorations (2TEC, 2TC) were registered during the follow-up. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 16 of the evaluated 52 patients were considered as high risk patients. Eight TEC (2 P, 6M) and 6 TC (2P, 4M) restorations failed during the 6 years. The main reason of failure was secondary caries (43%; including the failure fracture + secondary caries it increases to 57.1%). 63% of the recurrent caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants. The overall success rate at six years was 88.1%. No statistical significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated RC.Significance: The nano-hybrid RC showed good clinical performance during the 6 year evaluation, comparable to the well-established conventional hybrid RC.

To investigate in a prospective follow up the longevity of posterior resin composites (RC) placed in permanent teeth of children and adolescents attending Public Dental Health Service.

The objective of this prospective clinical follow-up was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite in class II restorations. The restorations were made with and without intermediary layer of a nanofilled flowable resin composite studied in an intraindividual comparison. Each participant received at least two, as similar as possible, class II restorations of the nanofilled resin composite. One restoration of each pair (54) was chosen at random to be restored with an intermediary layer with flowable nanofilled resin composite. The other was restored without. The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified US Public Health Services criteria at baseline, 1, and 2 years. Ninety-two restorations, 46 pairs, were evaluated at 2 years. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 22 of the evaluated 48 patients were considered as high-risk patients. Two failures were observed, one in each group, resulting in a 2.2% failure rate. No statistical difference was seen between the restorations restored with and without layer of flowable resin composite. The nanofilled resin composite showed very good surface characteristics and color match, which did not change significantly during the follow-up period. The nanofilled resin composite showed a good clinical performance with a 2.2% failure rate after 2 years. No differences were observed between the restorations with and without the nanofilled flowable resin intermediary layer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical retention of a one-step self-etching adhesive system (Xeno III) in Class V non-carious cervical lesions and the effect of restorative material and curing techniques on longevity of the restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 139 Class V restorations were placed with the self-etching primer Xeno III and a resin composite (Tetric Ceram) or a poly-acid modified resin composite (Dyract AP) in non-carious cervical lesions without intentional enamel involvement. The materials were cured with a conventional continuous light, a soft-start or a pulse-delay curing mode. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months and then yearly during a 7 year follow-up with modified USPHS criteria. Dentine bonding efficiency was determined by the percentage of lost restorations. RESULTS: During the 7 years, 135 restorations could be evaluated. No post-operative sensitivity was reported by the participants. Overall relative cumulative loss rate frequencies for the adhesive system at 6 and 18 months and 7 years, independent of curing technique and restorative material, were 0.8%, 6.9% and 23.0%, respectively. The self-etching adhesive fulfilled at 18 months the full acceptance ADA criteria. Tetric Ceram showed at 7 years a 20.9% loss of retention and Dyract AP a 25.0% loss rate (Log rank p=0.48). The loss rates for the 3 curing techniques: continuous, soft start and pulse delay were 17%, 27.9% and 24.4%, respectively (Log rank p=0.52). No secondary caries was observed. SIGNIFICANCE: The single-step self-etching adhesive showed acceptable clinical long-time retention rates to dentine surfaces independent of restorative material and curing technique used.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective clinical follow up was to evaluate the long term clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations with and without intermediate layer of flowable resin composite. METHODS: Each participant received at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations of the hybrid resin composite. One resin composite restoration of each pair (59) was chosen at random to be restored with an intermediary layer with flowable resin composite. The other was restored without. The 118 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 7 years. RESULTS: Four drop outs were registered during the 7-year follow up (2 with and 2 without flowable) restorations. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 18 of the evaluated 46 patients were considered as high risk patients. Seventeen failures were observed, 8 in restorations with and 9 in restorations without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite, resulting in a 14.9% failure rate after 7 years. The main reasons for failure were: fracture of resin composite (8), secondary caries (4) and cusp fracture (3). No statistical difference was seen between restorations restored with and without flowable layer. CONCLUSION: The hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance during the 7-year evaluation. The use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer did not result in improved effectiveness of the Class II restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of an ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X; Dentsply/DeTrey) in Class II restorations placed with a one-step self-etch (Xeno III; Dentsply/DeTrey) and two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent). METHODS: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations of the nano-hybrid resin composite bonded with either a single step self-etch adhesive or a control 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 4 years. RESULTS: 162 restorations were evaluated at 4 years. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 6 patients (3 Xeno III, 3 Exite) between 1-3 weeks. Eleven failed restorations (6.8%) were observed during the follow up. Seven in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (7.7%) and four in the 2-step etch-and-rinse group (5.6%). This resulted in non-significant different annual failure rates of 1.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. CONCLUSION: The ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance in Class II cavities during the 4 year evaluation. No significant difference was seen in overall clinical effectiveness between the two adhesives.

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.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical retention to dentin of a two-step self-etching adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond and a two-step etch-and-rinse system PQ1. METHODS: A total of 119 Class V restorations were placed in non-carious cervical lesions without intentional involvement of the enamel incisal of the lesions. The restorations were evaluated yearly during an 8-year follow-up. Clinical dentin bonding efficiency was determined by the percentage of lost restorations at each of the recalls. RESULTS: At 8 years, 112 restorations could be evaluated. Both adhesives fulfilled the ADA 18-month full acceptance criteria for retention with a retention rate of 90.6% for PQ1 and 98.2% for Clearfil SE Bond. The loss rates increased then considerably after 2 and 3 years, respectively. The cumulative loss rates at 8 years were 25.5% for Clearfil SE and 39.3% for PQ1 (p=0.12). No significant differences were observed between lesions with sclerotic and non-sclerotic dentin. The size of the lesions did not influence the bonding effectiveness. A lower loss rate was found for the restorations placed in lesions slightly roughened before etching. CONCLUSION: Both adhesive systems showed acceptable short-term clinical retention to dentin, which decreased after long-time in vivo aging, especially for the simplified etch-and-rinse system.

The aim of this study was to investigate toothbrushing and dentifrice habits in a Swedish adult population with relatively high caries frequency, which received regularly dental care and to evaluate the awareness of their toothbrush technique. Sixty adult participants with high caries frequency, 29 woman and 31 men, answered a self-reporting questionnaire with 42 questions concerning their oral care, brushing technique and -habits.The responses were related to their clinical behaviour observed during a customary toothbrushing session. Fifty-three participants fulfilled both the questionnaire and the clinical observation. Half of these used toothpaste containing 1450-1500 ppm fluoride but only one of all participants was aware of the fluoride concentration used. The majority used a manual toothbrush and 95% brushed their teeth twice a day using 0.9 g toothpaste. A wide range of brushing methods and habits was observed. Sixty percent did not brush systematically. Spitting of toothpaste-saliva during brushing was performed by 60% and after brushing by 15%.The observed brushing times were significantly higher than the self reported. The observed brushing times were <1 min: 3.4%, 1-2 min: 36.7% and >2 min: 47.0%. There was a significant correlation between observed brushing time and caries activity. Rinsing with water after brushing was performed once (32%) or twice (44%) during the observations. Only 9% rinsed with toothpaste slurry after brushing. It can be concluded that the awareness of the individual toothbrushing, post-brushing behaviour and the use of fluoride toothpaste was non-optimal in the adult participants. Oral health promotion by optimalized use of fluoride toothpaste and improved post-brushing behaviour should be recommended.

Objectives: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of three-unit posterior fixed partial dentures (FPDs) made of fiber-reinforced resin composite (FRC), and to identify design factors influencing the survival rate. Methods: 77 patients (52 females, 25 males) received 96 indirectly made FRC FPDs, using pre-impregnated unidirectional glass-fibers, requiring manual wetting, as framework material. FPDs were surface (n = 31) inlay (n = 45) or hybrid (n = 20) retained and mainly located in the upper jaw. Hybrid FPDs consisted of a wing retainer at canine and an inlay retainer at distal abutment tooth. Surface FPDs consisted of uplay and wing combinations. Follow-up period was at minimum 4.5 years, with checkups at every 1–2 years. The study was carried out by six operators in three centers in the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. Survival rates, including reparable defects of FPDs, and success rates were determined. Results: Kaplan–Meier survival rate at 5 years was 71.2% (SE 4.8%) for success and 77.5% (SE 4.4%) for survival. Differences were not significantly different. Main failure modes were delamination and fracture of the FPD. Only FPDs with surface retainers showed debonding. Conclusions: A success rate of 71% and a survival rate of 78% after 5 years was found. Survival rates of inlay, hybrid and surface retained FPDs did not significantly differ.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture frequency and longevity of fractured class IV resin composite (RC), polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer; PMRC), and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorations in a longitudinal long-term follow-up. Eighty-five class IV RC (43: Pekafil), PMRC (24: Dyract (D), Hytac (H)), and RMGIC (18: Fuji II LC (F), Photac Fil (P)) restorations were placed in ongoing longitudinal follow-ups in 45 patients (mean age 54.5 years). The restorations were evaluated during 14 years by slightly modified USPHS criteria at yearly recalls especially for their fracture behavior. For all restorations, 36.5% were fractured, with a Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate of 8.8 years (standard error (SE) 0.5, confidence interval (CI) 7.9-9.8). The number of fractures per material was 11 RC (25.6%; KM 9.9 years, CI 8.7-11.0), 13 PMRC (54.2%; D 66.6%; H 50.0%; KM 7.5 years, CI 5.8-9.2), and seven RMGIC (36.5%; F 22.2%, P 71.4%; KM 6.9 years, CI 7.9-9.8). Significant differences were seen between RC and PMRC (p = 0.043). A significant higher fracture rate was observed in teeth 12 + 22 compared to teeth 11 + 21. No significant differences were observed between male and female patients. Restorations in bruxing patients (45) showed 22 fractures (KM 8 years; CI 6.9-9.3) and in non-bruxing patients (39) nine fractures (KM 9.9 years, CI 8.7-11.1; p = 0.017). With regard to the longevity of the replaced failed restorations, for RC, the mean age was 4.5 years; for PMRC, 4.3 years; and for RMGIC, 3.3 years. It can be concluded that fracture was the main reason for failure of class IV restorations. An improved longevity was observed for class IV restorations compared to those presented in earlier studies. RC restorations showed the lowest failure frequency and the highest longevity.

BACKGROUND: Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial. METHODS: A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, chi(2) and McNemar tests at P < .05. RESULTS: Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil). CONCLUSIONS: Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.

PURPOSE: To study the durability of a recently developed low-shrinkage resin composite, suggested to counter the stress formation in direct resin composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each of 50 patients received one or two pair(s) of Class II restorations. The first restoration in the pair was a low-shrinkage resin composite (InTen-S) and the second a hybrid resin composite restoration (Point 4). Both restorations were placed with an etch-and-rinse bonding system and an oblique layering technique. A total of 106 restorations, 33 premolar and 73 molars, were placed. The restorations were evaluated annually. RESULTS: At 5 years, 97 restorations were evaluated. Two participants reported slight postoperative sensitivity symptoms for a few weeks after placement. Twelve non acceptable restorations were observed during the 5 years, five InTen-S (10.4%) and 7 Point 4 (14.3%) (not significant). Secondary caries was the main reason for failure (8) followed by composite fracture (2) and tooth fracture (2). CONCLUSION: The low-shrinkage resin composite showed good durability, but not significantly better than the control resin composite in Class II cavities. Most failures occurred at the last part of the study. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure.

Objectives: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of 3-unit anterior fixed partial dentures (FPDs) made of fiber-reinforced resin composite (FRC), and to identify design factors influencing the survival rate. Methods: 52 patients (26 females, 26 males) received 60 indirectly made FRC FPDs, using pre-impregnated unidirectional glass fibers, requiring manual wetting, as framework material. FPDs were surface (n = 48) or hybrid (n = 12) retained and mainly located in the upper jaw. Hybrid FPDs had a combination of retainers; i.e. crown at one and surface retention at the other abutment tooth. Surface FPDs were either purely adhesively retained (n = 29) or with additional mechanical retention (n = 19). Follow-up period was at minimum 5 years, with check-ups every 1–2 years. Six operators were involved, in three centers in the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. Survival rates, including repairable defects of FPDs, and success rates were determined. Results: Kaplan–Meier survival rate at 5 years was 64% (SE 7%). For the level of success, values were 45% (SE 7%) and the estimated median survival time 58 (SE 10.1) months. For surface FPDs, additional mechanical retention did not improve survival significantly. There was a trend towards better survival of surface FPDs over hybrid FPDs, but differences were not significant. Main failure modes were fracture of the FPD and delamination of veneering composite. Significance: A success rate of 45% and a survival rate of 64% after 5 years was found. Fracture of the framework and delamination are the most prevalent failure modes, especially for surface FPDs.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of multiple daily applications of a prophylactic gel, with buffering substances, on plaque acidogenicity in elderly institutionalised individuals was evaluated. BACKGROUND: Many elderly suffer from reduced salivary flow, poor oral hygiene and increased levels of cariogenic bacteria and are considered to be at an increased risk for coronal and root caries. Reinforcing the buffering capacity of dental plaque by the addition of substances such as bicarbonate and phosphates may decrease their caries activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen elderly, with subjective dry mouth, were treated for 16-day-periods at random with: (i) Profylin fluoride gel with buffering components; (ii) Profylin fluoride gel without buffering components and (iii) rinsing with water. Applications were made four times a day and each period was followed by a 2-week wash-out period. The plaque pH was registered after a carbohydrate challenge and the following were recorded before and after each test period: stimulated salivary secretion rate, buffer capacity, number Colony Farming Units (CFU) mutans streptococci, lactobacilli and a sample of Candida albicans on oral mucosa. RESULTS: Eleven participants (mean age 76.6 years) fulfilled the study. Changes in plaque pH measurements, when calculated as area under the curve (AUC(6.2) and AUC(5.7)) values (pH x min), before and after each of the three treatments, showed no significant differences. A tendency to a higher plaque acidogenicity and amount of cariogenic microorganisms was found after the gel treatments. C. albicans was found in low levels. CONCLUSION: Frequent applications of the gel did not result in an improved neutralising effect in the elderly. This may be caused by a combination of several factors, such as the level of oral dryness of the individuals and low solubility, release and retention of the gel substances in plaque. Instead, an increased plaque acidogenicity was noted.

A new direct restorative material, a calcium aluminate cement, was introduced in the year 2000 and sold under the name Doxadent (Doxa AB, Uppsala, Sweden). The aim of this study was to evaluate Doxadent used in class I and II cavities. A total of 63 restorations were evaluated clinically, according to sligthly modified USPHS criteria, at baseline, after 6 mths, 1, 2 and 3 yrs. Four of the patients reported post-operative sensitivity. At 3 yrs, 62 restorations were evaluated. At 6 mths 9.5% non-acceptable Doxadent restorations were observed, 17.5% at 12 mths, 24.2% at 2 yrs and 21% at 3 yrs, which resulted in a cumulative failure frequency of 72.6% at the end of the 3-years for the new restorative material. Main reasons for failure were material or tooth fracture. It can be concluded that Doxadent showed a non-acceptable clinical failure rate as a posterior restorative, especially in class II cavities.

This chapter reviews different ceramics and the influence of luting agents on the durability of ceramic inlays and onlays. The dental literature was reviewed for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies of ceramic inlays and onlays; luted with different luting agents. Longevity and annual failure were determined. Phosphate cements, light-cured resin composites, and conventional glass-ionomer cements showed unacceptable, high clinical failure rates and are not suitable for luting dental ceramic inlays. Dual-cured and chemically cured resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement showed better durability. Inlays of pressed ceramics and computer-aided design/computer assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM)-produced ceramics showed better longevity than fired-ceramic inlays.