Back to Search
Start Over
Class II resin composite restorations—tunnel vs. box-only in vitro and in vivo
- Source :
- Clinical Oral Investigations
- Publication Year :
- 2020
- Publisher :
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2020.
-
Abstract
- PurposeIn a combined in vitro/in vivo approach, tunnel vs. box-only resin composite restorations should be evaluated using thermomechanical loading (TML) in vitro and a restrospective clinical trial in vivo.Materials and methodsFor the in vitro part, box-only and tunnel cavities were prepared in 32 extracted human third molars under simulated intraoral conditions in a phantom head. Specimens were randomly assigned to four groups (n= 8; 16 box-only/16 tunnel) and received bonded resin composite restorations with Amelogen Plus (box A/tunnel A) or lining with Ultraseal and Amelogen plus (box B/tunnel B) both bonded using PQ1 (all Ultradent). Specimens were subjected to a standardized aging protocol, 1-year water storage (WS) followed by TML (100,000 × 50 N; 2500 × + 5/+ 55 °C). Initially and after aging, marginal qualities were evaluated using replicas at × 200 magnification (SEM). For the corresponding in vivo observational study, 229 patients received 673 proximal resin composite restorations. From 371 tunnel restorations, 205 cavities were filled without flowable lining (tunnel A), and 166 tunnels were restored using UltraSeal as lining (tunnel B). A total of 302 teeth received conventional box-only fillings. Restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria during routine recalls up to 5 years of clinical service.ResultsIn vitro, all initial results showed 100% gap-free margins when a flowable lining was used. Tunnels without lining exhibited some proximal shortcomings already before TML and even more pronounced after TML (p< 0.05). After TML, percentages of gap-free margins dropped to 87–90% in enamel with lining and 70–79% without lining (p< 0.05). In vivo, annual failure rates for box-only were 2.2%, for tunnel A 6.1%, and for tunnel B 1.8%, respectively (p< 0.05). Tunnels had significantly more sufficient proximal contact points than box-only restorations (p< 0.05). Flowable lining was highly beneficial for clinical outcome of tunnel-restorations (p< 0.05).ConclusionsWith a flowable lining, tunnel restorations proved to be a good alternative to box-only resin composite restorations.Clinical relevanceClass II tunnel restorations showed to be a viable alternative for box-only restorations, however, only when flowable resin composite was used as adaptation promotor for areas being difficult to access.
- Subjects :
- Molar
Materials science
Resin composite
Dentistry
Box-only preparation
Tunnel preparation
Composite Resins
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
In vitro
In vivo
Usphs criteria
Humans
Dental Enamel
Dental Restoration, Permanent
General Dentistry
Clinical observation
Enamel paint
business.industry
In vitro vs. in vivo
Dental Cavity Lining
Thermomechanical loading
Correction
030206 dentistry
Dental Marginal Adaptation
Resin Cements
Dentin-Bonding Agents
030220 oncology & carcinogenesis
visual_art
visual_art.visual_art_medium
Resin composites
Original Article
Dental Cavity Preparation
business
Marginal integrity
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 14363771 and 14326981
- Volume :
- 25
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Clinical Oral Investigations
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....678ae329e28b4bef2285e620d3a7d506