A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: A 2-year clinical evaluation

Objective: A restorative material for Class III cavities must, besides being functional, be esthetically satisfactory, providing good working conditions and several shade and color options. A clinical evaluation was initiated to compare the suitability of resin composite and glass-ionomer cement materials for such restorations.Method and materials: Forty-two Class III conservative cavities, esthetically important because of facial extensions, were selected. Resin composite restorations were placed in 21 cavities, and the remaining 21 were restored with glass-ionomer cement. The following characteristics were studied: color or-esthetics, anatomic shape, surface texture, staining, marginal infiltration, dental plaque retention, and occurrence of fracture. After 24 months, the restorations were evaluated.Results: the only statistically significant difference between the resin composite and glass-ionomer cement restorations in the experimental period involved color or esthetics.Conclusion: Resin composites and glass-ionomer materials provide excellent functional and esthetic results in Class III cavities when properly indicated.

Polymerization shrinkage: effects of boundary conditions and filling technique of resin composite restorations

Objective: To evaluate the linear polymerization shrinkage (LPS) and the effect of polymerization shrinkage of a resin composite and resin-dentin bond strength under different boundary conditions and filling techniques.Methods: Two cavities (4 x 4 x 2 MM) were prepared in bovine incisors (n = 30). The teeth were divided into three groups, according to boundary conditions: In group TE, the total-etch technique was used. In group EE, only enamel was conditioned, and in group NE, none of the watts of the cavities were conditioned. A two-step adhesive system was applied to all cavities. The resin composite was inserted in one (B) or three increments (1), and tight-cured with 600 mW/cm(2) (80 s). The LPS (%) was measured in the top-bottom direction, by placing a probe in contact with resin composite during curing. Enamel and total mean gap widths were measured (400 x) in three slices obtained after sectioning the restorations. Then, the slices were sectioned again, either to obtain sticks from the adhesive interface from the bottom of the cavity or to obtain resin composite sticks (0.8 mm(2)) to be tested for tensile strength (Kratos machine, 0.5 mm/min). The data was subjected to a two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test for comparison of the means (alpha = 0.05).Results: the highest percentage of LPS was found for the TE when bulk fitted, and the lowest percentage of LPS was found in the Hand NE when incrementally fitted. The resin dentin bond strength was higher and the total mean gap width was tower for TE group; no significant effect was detected for the main factor fitting techniques. No difference was detected for the tensile strength of resin composite among the experimental groups.Conclusions: the filling technique is not able to minimize effects of the polymerization shrinkage, and bonding to the cavity watts is necessary to assure reduced mean gap width and high bond strength values. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

One-year clinical performance of self-etch adhesives in posterior restorations

Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S-3 Bond, iBond) in posterior composite restorations using one etch&rinse adhesive (One-Step Plus) as control. Methods: Upon approval by the Institutional Review Board, 121 restorations were inserted in 38 subjects. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' instructions. Preparations were restored with a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme) and evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Statistical analyses included the Chi-square distribution with the McNemar non-parametric test (P< 0.05). Results: At 1 year, 111 restorations in 35 subjects were evaluated using the USPHS modified criteria. No significant changes were observed for the etch&rinse adhesive One-Step Plus. At 1 year the number of Alfa ratings decreased significantly for Clearfil S-3 Bond and for iBond in the categories color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. For Adper Prompt L-Pop, marginal adaptation at 1 year was significantly worse than at baseline. Postoperative sensitivity to air improved significantly for Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S-3 Bond, and iBond. When the evaluation criteria were paired at 1 year, iBond resulted in a significantly lower number of Alfa ratings than any of the other adhesives for color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. One-Step Plus resulted in a greater number of Alfa ratings for marginal adaptation than either Adper Prompt L-Pop or Clearfil S-3 Bond. Marginal adaptation was significantly better for Clearfil S-3 Bond than for Adper Prompt L-Pop. The post-operative sensitivity measured at 1 year for Adper Prompt L-Pop was statistically better than that for One-Step Plus.

Microleakage of hydrophilic adhesive systems in Class V composite restorations

Purpose: To investigate the microleakage of four hydrophilic adhesive systems: one multiple-bottles (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus); two one-bottle (Single Bond, Stae); and one self-etching (Etch & Prime 3.0). Materials and Methods: 120 bovine incisor teeth were divided into four groups (n = 30) and Class V cavities were prepared at the cemento-enamel junction. The cavities were restored with the adhesive systems and with Z100 composite. The teeth were thermocycled 1,000 times between 5 +/- 2 degreesC and 55 +/- 2 degreesC with a dwell time of 1 min, and then placed in a 2% methylene blue dye (pH 7.0) for 4 hrs, washed and sectioned vertically through the center of the restorations. The qualitative evaluation was made by three examiners who distributed pre-established scores (0-4) for each tooth using a stereomicroscope at x30 magnification. Results: In enamel margins little microleakage was observed and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis did not show differences. In dentin margins the KruskaI-Wallis and multiple comparison analyses were applied: microleakage was significantly greater with Stae (median 3) and Scotchbond MP Plus (median 4). Single Bond (median 1) and Etch & Prime 3.0 (median 2) showed the best results in dentin margins, and the statistical analysis did not demonstrate differences in microleakage among these groups.