982 resultados para Class II restorations
Resumo:
Purpose: More than five hundred million direct dental restorations are placed each year worldwide. In about 55% of the cases, resin composites or compomers are used, and in 45% amalgam. The longevity of posterior resin restorations is well documented. However, data on resin composites that are placed without enamel/dentin conditioning and resin composites placed with self-etching adhesive systems are missing. Material and Methods: The database SCOPUS was searched for clinical trials on posterior resin composites without restricting the search to the year of publication. The inclusion criteria were: (1) prospective clinical trial with at least 2 years of observation; (2) minimum number of restorations at last recall = 20; (3) report on dropout rate; (4) report of operative technique and materials used; (5) utilization of Ryge or modified Ryge evaluation criteria. For amalgam, only those studies were included that directly compared composite resin restorations with amalgam. For the statistical analysis, a linear mixed model was used with random effects to account for the heterogeneity between the studies. P-values under 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 373 clinical trials, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 70% of the studies, Class II and Class I restorations had been placed. The overall success rate of composite resin restorations was about 90% after 10 years, which was not different from that of amalgam. Restorations with compomers had a significantly lower longevity. The main reason for replacement were bulk fractures and caries adjacent to restorations. Both of these incidents were infrequent in most studies and accounted only for about 6% of all replaced restorations after 10 years. Restorations with macrofilled composites and compomer suffered significantly more loss of anatomical form than restorations with other types of material. Restorations that were placed without enamel acid etching and a dentin bonding agent showed significantly more marginal staining and detectable margins compared to those restorations placed using the enamel-etch or etch-and-rinse technique; restorations with self-etching systems were between the other groups. Restorations with compomer suffered significantly more chippings (repairable fracture) than restorations with other materials, which did not statistically differ among each other. Restorations that were placed with a rubber-dam showed significantly fewer material fractures that needed replacement, and this also had a significant effect on the overall longevity. Conclusion: Restorations with hybrid and microfilled composites that were placed with the enamel-etching technique and rubber-dam showed the best overall performance; the longevity of these restorations was similar to amalgam restorations. Compomer restorations, restorations placed with macrofilled composites, and resin restorations with no-etching or self-etching adhesives demonstrated significant shortcomings and shorter longevity.
Posterior Composite Resin. Effect of material and technique in cervical gap of class II restorations
Resumo:
Objective: To evaluate the effects of simulated aging in bond strength and nanoleakage of class II restorations using three different restorative techniques. Materials and methods: Class II preparations (n = 12) were restored using: FS - composite resin Filtek Supreme Plus (3M/ESPE); RMGIC + FS - resin-modified glass ionomer cement Vitrebond Plus (3M/ESPE) + FS; and FFS + FS - flowable composite resin Filtek Supreme Plus Flowable (3M ESPE) + FS. The teeth were assigned into two groups: Control and Simulated Aging - Thermal/Mechanical cycling (3,000 cycles, 20-80 °C/500,000 cycles, 50 N). From each tooth, two slabs were assessed to microtensile bond strength test (μTBS) (MPa), and two slabs were prepared for nanoleakage assessment, calculated as penetration along the restoration margin considering the penetration length (%) and as the area of silver nitrate particle deposition (μm2). Data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0. 05). Results: FS presented the highest μTBS to dentin (22. 39 ± 7. 55 MPa) after simulated aging, while the presence of flowable resin significantly decreased μTBS (14. 53 ± 11. 65 MPa) when compared to no aging condition. Both control and aging groups of RMGIC + FS presented the highest values of silver nitrate penetration (89. 90 ± 16. 31 % and 97. 14 ± 5. 76 %) and deposition area (33. 05 ± 12. 49 and 28. 08 ± 9. 76 μm2). Nanoleakage was not affected by simulated aging. Conclusions: FS presented higher bond strength and lower nanoleakage and was not affected by simulated aging. Use of flowable resin compromised the bond strength after simulated aging. Clinical relevance: The use of an intermediate layer did not improve the dentin bond strength neither reduced nanoleakage at the gingival margins of class II restorations under simulated aging conditions. © 2012 Springer-Verlag.
Resumo:
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of class II restorations made with a composite resin with two different viscosities.Methods: 47 patients received two class II restorations (n = 94), one made with GrandioSO (conventional viscosity CV), and the other with GrandioSO Heavy Flow (flowable viscosity FV), subjecting both materials to the same clinical conditions. The self-etching adhesive Futurabond M was used for all restorations. The composites were inserted using the incremental technique. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria according to the periods: baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after restorative procedures.Results: After 24 months, 40 patients attended the recall and 78 restorations were evaluated. In all periods, no secondary caries was observed. After 6 months, there were slightly overall changes of scores for most parameters. After 24 months, the higher number of changes from score Alfa to Bravo was observed for marginal discolouration (32.5% CV and 39.5% FV) and colour match (15% CV and 31.6% FV), followed by proximal contact (25% CV and 23.7% FV) and marginal adaptation (20% CV and 21.1% FV). For wear, surface texture and postoperative sensitivity the changes were very small. Just two restorations were lost during the 24-month follow up. Less than 5% of all restorations showed postoperative sensitivity. Chi-square test showed no significant differences between the two materials for all parameters analysed.Conclusion: After 2 years of clinical service, no significant differences were observed between GrandioSO conventional and GrandioSO Heavy Flow for the parameters analysed. Both materials provided acceptable clinical behaviour in class II restorations. Clinical Significance: This study presents the possibility of using a flowable composite with high filler content, for performing class II restorations. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness of proximal contacts in Class II restorations using two types of matrix bands (steel and polyester) with two different restoration techniques (incremental and with prepolymerized particles). Method and materials: Eighty-eight Class II adjacent restorations using Prodigy resin composite were performed: 44 with the incremental technique (22 with steel matrix bands, 22 with polyester matrix bands) and 44 utilizing prepolymerized resin particles (22 steel matrix, 22 polyester matrix). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. Proximal contacts obtained immediately after restoration procedure in all restorations were satisfactory. Results: No statistically significant alterations were found in 18 months of evaluation. Conclusion: Regardless of the utilized resin composite, there were no differences in the amount of proximal contact variations with respect to tested techniques and matrices.
Resumo:
Objective: The goal of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage on the cementum/dentin and enamel surfaces in Class II restorations, using different kinds of resin composite (microhybrid, flowable, and compactable). Method and materials: Forty human caries-free molars were extracted and selected. Eighty Class II standardized cavities were made in the cervical wall at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and at the mesial and distal surfaces. The teeth were divided into four groups: G1 - adhesive system + microhybrid resin composite Z100; G2 - adhesive system + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable; G3 - adhesive system + flowable resin composite Revolution + Z100 resin composite; G4 - adhesive system + Revolution fluid resin + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable. The adhesive system used in this study was Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. The specimens were thermocycled in baths of 5°C and 55°C for 1,000 cycles and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. The specimens then were sectioned and evaluated on degree of dye penetration. Results: The results were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskall-Wallis test, which showed a statistically significant difference between groups G1 and G4, G2 and G4, and G3 and G4. Conclusions: None of the materials was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage at the cervical wall; the application of a low-viscosity resin composite combined with a compactable resin composite significantly decreased the microleakage.
Resumo:
Purpose: To investigate in vitro the effect of retentive grooves, GIC type and insertion method on the fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations. Methods: Premolars were divided into 12 groups (n=10) according to three variables: retentive grooves [presence (PR) or absence AR)], GICs type [Ketac-Molar (KM), Fuji VIII (F8) and RelyX Luting (RX)], and insertion method [syringe injector (SI) or spoon excavator (SE)]. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance test. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using a Tukey test (P < 0.05). Results: Mean fracture resistance values (Kgf) +/- standard deviations (SD) were: KM (PR+SI) 65.66 +/- 2.5; KM (PR+SE) = 62.58 +/- 2.1; KM (AR+SI) = 57.11 +/- 1.9; KM (AR+SE) = 51.94 +/- 2.3; F8 (PR+SI) = 63.05 +/- 2.1; F8 (PR+SE) = 60.12 +/- 2.3; F8 (AR+SI) = 55.11 +/- 1.9; F8(AR+SE)=49.20 +/- 1.6; RX (PR+SI)=50.99 +/- 2.4; RX (PR+SE)=48.81 +/- 2.5; RX (AR+SI)=45.53 +/- 2.6; RX (AR+SE)=41.88 +/- 3.0. Statistically significant differences were observed among all the groups tested (P=0.001). There was significant difference when pooled means for GIC type were compared with retentive grooves (P=0.01) and when pooled means for retentive grooves were compared with insertion method (P=0.01).
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
A survey was sent to 70 Brazilian dental schools evaluating techniques and restorative materials being taught for Class I and II preparation in posterior primary teeth by Pediatric Dentistry courses. After a 54% response rate, marked teaching diversity was found among Brazilian dental schools. Amalgam continues to be taught, but a tendency of preference towards more esthetic-like materials was observed.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
A laboratory study was performed to assess the influence of beveling the margins of cavities and the effects on marginal adaptation of the application of ultrasound during setting and initial light curing. After minimal access cavities had been prepared with an 80 microm diamond bur, 80 box-only Class II cavities were prepared mesially and distally in 40 extracted human molars using four different oscillating diamond coated instruments: (A) a U-shaped PCS insert as the non-beveled control (EMS), (B) Bevelshape (Intensiv), (C) SonicSys (KaVo) and (D) SuperPrep (KaVo). In groups B-D, the time taken for additional bevel finishing was measured. The cavities were filled with a hybrid composite material in three increments. Ultrasound was also applied to one cavity per tooth before and during initial light curing (10 seconds). The specimens were subjected to thermomechanical stress in a computer-controlled masticator device. Marginal quality was assessed by scanning electron microscopy and the results were compared statistically. The additional time required for finishing was B > D > C (p < or = 0.05). In all groups, thermomechanical loading resulted in a decrease in marginal quality. Beveling resulted in higher values for "continuous" margins compared with that of the unbeveled controls. The latter showed better marginal quality at the axial walls when ultrasound was used. Beveling seems essential for good marginal adaptation but requires more preparation time. The use of ultrasonic vibrations may improve the marginal quality of unbeveled fillings and warrants further investigation.
Resumo:
AIM To compare the survival rates of Class II Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations placed in primary molars using cotton rolls or rubber dam as isolation methods. METHODS A total of 232 children, 6-7 years old, both genders, were selected having one primary molar with proximal dentine lesion. The children were randomly assigned into two groups: control group with Class II ART restoration made using cotton rolls and experimental group using rubber dam. The restorations were evaluated by eight calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.8) after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. RESULTS A total of 48 (20.7%) children were considered dropout, after 24 months. The cumulative survival rate after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months was 61.4%, 39.0%, 29.1% and 18.0%, respectively for the control group, and 64.1%, 55.1%, 40.1% and 32.1%, respectively for the rubber dam group. The log rank test for censored data showed no statistical significant difference between the groups (P = 0.07). The univariate Cox Regression showed no statistical significant difference after adjusting for independent variables (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION Both groups had similar survival rates, and after 2 years, the use of rubber dam does not increase the success of Class II ART restorations significantly.
Resumo:
Objective: the goal of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage on the cementum/dentin and enamel surfaces in Class 11 restorations, using different kinds of resin composite (microhybrid, flowable, and compactable). Method and materials: Forty human caries-free molars were extracted and selected. Eighty Class 11 standardized cavities were made in the cervical wall at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and at the mesial and distal surfaces. The teeth were divided into four groups: G1 - adhesive system + microhybrid resin composite Z100; G2 - adhesive system + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable; G3 - adhesive system + flowable resin composite Revolution + Z1 00 resin composite; G4 - adhesive system + Revolution fluid resin + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable. The adhesive system used in this study was Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. The specimens were thermocycled in baths of 5degreesC and 55degreesC for 1,000 cycles and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. The specimens then were sectioned and evaluated on degree of dye penetration. Results: the results were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskall-Wallis test, which showed a statistically significant difference between groups G1 and G4, G2 and G4, and G3 and G4. Conclusions: None of the materials was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage at the cervical wall; the application of a low-viscosity resin composite combined with a compactable resin composite significantly decreased the microleakage.