Clinical assessment of postoperative sensitivity in posterior composite restorations

This incidence of postoperative sensitivity was evaluated in resin-based posterior restorations. Two hundred and ninety-two direct restorations were evaluated in premolars and molars. A total of 143 Class I and 149 Class 11 restorations (MO/OD and MOD) were placed in patients ranging in age from 30 to 50 years. After the cavity preparations were completed, a rubber dam was placed, and the preparations were restored using a total-etch system (Prime & Bond NT) and a resin-based restorative material (TPH Spectrum). The patients were contacted after 24 hours and 7, 30 and 90 days postoperatively and questioned regarding the presence of sensitivity and the stimuli that triggered that sensitivity. The Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test were used for statistical analysis. Evaluation at 24 hours after restorative treatment revealed statistically significant differences among the types of cavity preparations restored and the occurrence of postoperative sensitivity (p=0.0003), with a higher frequency of sensitivity in Class H MOD restorations (26%), followed by Class II MO/DO (15%) and Class I restorations (5%). At 7, 30 and 90 days after restorative treatment, there was a decrease in the occurrence of sensitivity for all groups. The percentage of sensitivity among the groups was not significantly different. This study shows that the occurrence of sensitivity is correlated with the complexity of the restoration.

A thirty months clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin in primary molars

The purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a posterior composite resin TRH (Caulk Dentisply) in class I restorations in primary molars. A total of 30 children aged 5 to 8 years old with 49 class I dental lesions in primary molars participated in the study. The cavity preparations involved removal of carious lesion only and the enamel margins were beveled. The results showed after 30 months that, 82% (32/39) of Alfa ratings and 18% (7/39) of Bravo ratings. We concluded that the composite resin TP-H could be used in conservative restorations in primary molars, particularly in the late mixed dentition.

One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: Effect of adhesive systems

This clinical study assessed the performance of posterior composite resins applied with the Adper™ Single Bond Plus (SB) and Adper ™ Scotchbond SE (SE) adhesive systems and Filtek ™ Supreme Plus composite resin, using modified US Public Health Service criteria. A total of 97 restorations were placed in posterior teeth by two calibrated operators. Application of the materials followed manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline and after one year. Statistical analyses were conducted using the proportion test at a significance level of 5% (p<0.05). All the restorations evaluated (ie, 100%) received an alpha rating for the criteria of marginal discoloration and marginal integrity at baseline. At one year, for marginal discoloration, 64.6% of SB and 61.2% of SE received an alpha rating. For marginal integrity, 72.9% of SB and 77.6% of SE received an alpha rating. The other restorations received bravo ratings for both criteria. None of the teeth that received the restorative systems presented caries lesions around the restorations. A total of eight teeth presented postoperative sensitivity one week after baseline, five with SB and three with SE; the symptom had disappeared one year later. One year later, composite resin restorations using either adhesive system showed satisfactory clinical performance.

Effect of light-curing units on microleakage under dental composite resins

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light-curing units (QTH and LED) on microleakage of Class II composite resin restorations with dentin cavosurface margins. Twenty extracted mandibular first premolars, free of caries and fractures were prepared two vertical slot cavities in the occluso-mesial and -destal surfaces (2 mm buccal-lingually, 2 mm proximal-axially and cervical limit in enamel) and divided into 4 equal groups (n = 8): GI and GII: packable posterior composite light-activated with LED and QTH, respectively; GIII and GIV: micro-hybrid composite resin light-activated with LED and QTH, respectively. The composite resins were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. After 24 h of water storage specimens were subjected to thermocycling for a total of 500 cycles at 5 and 55A degrees C and the teeth were then sealed with impermeable material. Teeth were immersed in 0.5% Basic fuchsin during 24 h at room temperature, and zero to three levels of penetration score were attributed. The Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed significant statistically similar (P > 0.05) from GI to GII and GIII to GIV, which the GII (2.750) had the highest mean scores and the GIII and GIV (0.875) had lowest mean scores. The use of different light-curing units has no influence on marginal integrity of Class II composite resin restorations and the proprieties of composite resins are important to reduce the microleakage.

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.

Restorative treatment practices and dentist-related factors

This study aimed at elucidating real-life aspects of restorative treatment practices. In addition, dentists' views and perceptions of and variation in restorative treatment practices with respect to dentist-related factors were evaluated. Reasons for placement and replacement of restoration, material selection, posterior restoration longevity, and the use of local anesthesia were assessed on two cross-sectional data sets. Data from the Helsinki Public Dental Service (PDS) included details on 3057 restorations performed by dentists (n=134) during routine clinical work in 2001. The other PDS data from Vantaa were based on 205 patient records of young adults containing information on 1969 restorations investigated retrospectively from 1994-1996 backwards; 51 dentists performed the restorations. In addition, dentists’ self-reported use of local anesthesia and estimates of restoration longevity were investigated by means of a nationwide questionnaire sent to 592 general dental practitioners selected by systematic sampling from the membership list of the Finnish Dental Association in 2004. All data sets included some background information on dentists such as gender, year of birth or graduation, and working sector. In PDS in 2001, primary caries was the reason for placement of restoration more often among patients aged under 19 years than among older patients (p<0.001). Among patients over 36 years of age, replacements represented the majority. Regarding dentist-related factors, replacements of restorations were made by younger dentists more frequently than by older dentists (p<0.001). In PDS in 1994-1996, the replacement rate of posterior restorations was greater among female dentists than among male dentists (p=0.01), especially for amalgams (p=0.008). The mean age of replaced posterior restoration among young adults was 8.9 (SD 5.2) years for amalgam and 2.4 (SD 1.4) years for tooth-colored restorations, the actual replacement rate for all existing posterior restorations being 7% in PDS in 1994-1996. Of all restorative materials used, a clear majority (69%) were composites in PDS in 2001. Local anesthesia was used in 48% of cases and more frequently for older patients (55%) than for patients aged under 13 years (35%) (p<0.001). Younger dentists more often used local anesthesia for primary restoration than did the older dentists (p<0.001), especially for primary teeth (p=0.005). Working sector had an impact on dentists’ self-reported use of local anesthesia and estimates of restoration longevity; public sector dentists reported using local anesthesia more frequently than private sector dentists for Class II (p=0.04) and for Class III restorations (p=0.01). Private sector dentists gave longer estimates of posterior composite longevity than public sector dentists (p=0.001). In conclusion, restorative treatment practices seem to vary according to patient age and also dentist-related factors. Replacements of restorations are common for adults. For children, clear underuse of local anesthesia prevails.

Impact of Referral Protocols on the Dental Management of Patients Undergoing Treatment for Head and Neck Oncology in Northern Ireland

Objective: To evaluate the handling, by a group of practice-based researchers, of a recently introduced bulk fill resin-based composite restorative material, Filtek Bulk Fill Restorative (3M ESPE).

Methods: The twelve selected evaluators were sent explanatory letters, a pack of the material under investigation to use for 8 weeks, and a questionnaire.

Results: The evaluators rated the ease of use of the bulk fill restorative the same as the previously used posterior composite material. The provision of one shade only for evaluation may have compromised the score for aesthetic quality. No post-operative sensitivity was reported.

Conclusions: The bulk fill material was well received as indicated by the high number of evaluators who would both purchase the material and recommend it to colleagues.

Clinical relevance: A recently introduced bulk fill restorative material achieved a rating for handling which was similar to the evaluators’ previously used resin composite, although there were some concerns regarding the translucency of the material.

Marginal adaptation of Class 2 adhesive restorations

Objective: Control of microleakage represents a challenge for posterior composite restorations. The technique for composite placement may reduce microleakage. The null hypothesis of this in vitro study was that centripetal incremental insertion of composite resin would result in less microleakage than that obtained with the oblique incremental technique or bulk technique. Method and Materials: Standardized Class 2 preparations were made in 60 caries-free extracted third molars and randomly assigned to 3 groups ( n = 20): ( 1) oblique incremental insertion technique ( control), ( 2) centripetal incremental insertion technique, and ( 3) bulk insertion. The teeth were restored with a total-etch adhesive and micro-hybrid composite resin. The specimens were isolated with nail varnish except for a 2-mm-wide area around the restoration and then thermocycled ( 1,000 thermal cycles, 5 degrees C/ 55 degrees C; 30-second dwell time). The specimens were immersed in an aqueous solution of 50% silver nitrate for 24 hours, followed by 8 hours of immersion in a photo-developing solution and subsequently evaluated for leakage. The microleakage scores ( 0 to 4) obtained from the occlusal and cervical walls were analyzed with median nonparametric tests ( P <.05). Results: The null hypothesis was rejected. All techniques attained statistically similar dentin microleakage scores ( P =.15). The centripetal insertion technique displayed significantly less microleakage than the oblique technique at the enamel margins ( P =.04). Conclusion: None of the techniques eliminated marginal microleakage in Class 2 preparations. However, in occlusal areas, the centripetal technique performed significantly better than the other techniques.

Radiopacity of restorative materials using digital images

The radiopacity of esthetic restorative materials has been established as an important requirement, improving the radiographic diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of six restorative materials using a direct digital image system, comparing them to the dental tissues (enamel-dentin), expressed as equivalent thickness of aluminum (millimeters of aluminum). Five specimens of each material were made. Three 2-mm thick longitudinal sections were cut from an intact extracted permanent molar tooth (including enamel and dentin). An aluminum step wedge with 9 steps was used. The samples of different materials were placed on a phosphor plate together with a tooth section, aluminum step wedge and metal code letter, and were exposed using a dental x-ray unit. Five measurements of radiographic density were obtained from each image of each item assessed (restorative material, enamel, dentin, each step of the aluminum step wedge) and the mean of these values was calculated. Radiopacity values were subsequently calculated as equivalents of aluminum thickness. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences in radiopacity values among the materials (P<0.0001). The radiopacity values of the restorative materials evaluated were, in decreasing order: TPH, F2000, Synergy, Prisma Flow, Degufill, Luxat. Only Luxat had significantly lower radiopacity values than dentin. One material (Degufill) had similar radiopacity values to enamel and four (TPH, F2000, Synergy and Prisma Flow) had significantly higher radiopacity values than enamel. In conclusion, to assess the adequacy of posterior composite restorations it is important that the restorative material to be used has enough radiopacity, in order to be easily distinguished from the tooth structure in the radiographic image. Knowledge on the radiopacity of different materials helps professionals to select the most suitable material, along with other properties such as biocompatibility, adhesion and esthetic.