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.

Behaviour of general dental practitioners in Germany regarding posterior restorations with flowable composites

Because the recommendation to use flowables for posterior restorations is still a matter of debate, the objective of this study was to determine in a nationwide survey in Germany how frequently, for what indications, and for what reasons, German dentists use flowable composites in posterior teeth. In addition, the acceptance of a simplified filling technique for posterior restorations using a low stress flowable composite was evaluated. Completed questionnaires from all over Germany were returned by 1,449 dentists resulting in a response rate of 48.5%; 78.6% of whom regularly used flowable composites for posterior restorations. The most frequent indications were cavity lining (80.1%) and small Class I fillings (74.2%). Flowables were less frequently used for small Class II fillings (22.7%) or other indications (13.6%). Most frequent reasons given for the use of flowables in posterior teeth were the prevention of voids (71.7%) and superior adaptation to cavity walls (72.9%), whereas saving time was considered less important (13.8%). Based on the subjective opinion of the dentists the simplified filling technique seemed to deliver advantages compared to the methods used to date particularly with regard to good cavity adaptation and ease of use. In conclusion, resin composites are the standard material type used for posterior restorations by general dental practitioners in Germany and most dentists use flowable composites as liners.

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.

Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites A five-year follow-up

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.

56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations

Objective: This study evaluated the 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations. Filtek P60 was compared with Filtek Z250, which are both indicated for posterior restorations but differ in terms of handling characteristics. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the clinical performance of the two resin composites in posterior teeth. Material and Methods: Thirty-three patients were treated by the same operator, who prepared 48 Class I and 42 Class II cavities, which were restored with Single Bond/Filtek Z250 or Single Bond/Filtek P60 restorative systems. Restorations were evaluated by two independent examiners at baseline and after 56 months, using the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests (alpha=0.05). Results: After 56 months, 25 patients (31 Class I and 36 Class II) were analyzed. A 3% failure rate occurred due to secondary caries and excessive loss of anatomic form for P60. For both restorative systems, there were no significant differences in secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. However, significant changes were observed with respect to anatomic form, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. Significant decreases in surface texture were observed exclusively for the Z250 restorations. Conclusions: Both restorative systems can be used for posterior restorations and can be expected to perform well in the oral environment.

Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials, a review in 3 parts. Part 1: Approval requirements and standardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specifications

The first part of this three-part review on the relevance of laboratory testing of composites and adhesives deals with approval requirements for composite materials. We compare the in vivo and in vitro literature data and discuss the relevance of in vitro analyses. The standardized ISO protocols are presented, with a focus on the evaluation of physical parameters. These tests all have a standardized protocol that describes the entire test set-up. The tests analyse flexural strength, depth of cure, susceptibility to ambient light, color stability, water sorption and solubility, and radiopacity. Some tests have a clinical correlation. A high flexural strength, for instance, decreases the risk of fractures of the marginal ridge in posterior restorations and incisal edge build-ups of restored anterior teeth. Other tests do not have a clinical correlation or the threshold values are too low, which results in an approval of materials that show inferior clinical properties (e.g., radiopacity). It is advantageous to know the test set-ups and the ideal threshold values to correctly interpret the material data. Overall, however, laboratory assessment alone cannot ensure the clinical success of a product.

Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth

This study evaluated the 10-year clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement placed in posterior permanent teeth by means of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach. One operator placed 167 single- and 107 multiple-surface restorations in 43 high-risk caries pregnant women (mean decayed teeth = 9.8 +/- 5.5). Examinations were performed at 1-, 2-, and 10-year intervals according to ART criteria. In the last evaluation, the US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were also used. After 10 years, 129 restorations (47.1%) were evaluated and achieved a cumulative survival rate of 49.0% (SE 7.2%). The 10-year survival of single- and multiple-surface ART restorations assessed using the ART criteria were 65.2% (SE 7.3%) and 30.6% (SE 9.9%), respectively. This difference was significant (jackknife SE of difference; p < 0.05). Using the USPHS criteria, the 10-year survival of single- and multiple-surface ART restorations were 86.5% and 57.6%, respectively. The primary causes of failure were total loss (9.3%) and marginal defects (5.4%). The survival rates observed, especially for the single-surface restorations, confirm the potential of the ART approach for restoring and saving posterior permanent teeth.

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.

An effective technique to posterior resin composite restorations

AIM: The aim of this study is to present a clinical case in which an occlusal matrix device was used in a patient who needed to restore a posterior tooth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A direct duplicate occlusal appliance was used (biteperf) in a patient who needed an occlusal restoration in two posterior teeth. RESULTS: Using the matrix helps having fast and accurate reproduction of the original anatomical details of the occlusal surface. The final result surprised with the presented restoration in terms of esthetic quality, despite the simplicity of the technique. CONCLUSION: Posterior teeth with initial lesions were confined to the occlusal surface of anatomically complex or fissured anatomy with or without signs of proximal caries wich are ideal candidates for this technique. The overlying enamel surface must be relatively intact; lesions of hidden or occult caries. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The aesthetic and time-saving benefits of the occlusal device (biteperf) are immediately clear. The matrix allows the fast and accurate reproduction of the anatomic details of the original occlusal surface of the tooth. The professionals who lack an artistic penchant and marked manual ability will be able to carry out excellent posterior resin composite restorations.

Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations: a meta-analysis.

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.

Periodontal and Prosthetic Biologic Considerations to Restore Biological Width in Posterior Teeth

\ The biologic width is an essential dental space that always needs to be maintained to ensure periodontal health in any dental prosthetic restorations. An iatrogenic partial fixed prosthesis constructed in lower posterior teeth predisposed the development of subgingival caries, which induced violation of the biologic width in involved teeth, resulting in an uncontrolled inflammatory process and periodontal tissue destruction. This clinical report describes a periodontal surgical technique to recover a violated biologic width in lower posterior teeth, by crown lengthening procedure associated with free gingival graft procedure, to ensure the possibility to place a modified partial fixed prosthesis in treated area. The procedure applied to recover the biologic width was crown lengthening with some modifications, associated with modified partial fixed prosthesis to achieve health in treated area. The modified techniques in both surgical and prosthetic procedures were applied to compensate the contraindications to recover biologic width by osteotomy in lower posterior teeth. The result, after 4 years under periodic control, seems to achieve the projected goal. Treating a dental diseased area is necessary to diagnose, eliminate, or control all etiologic factors involved in the process. When the traditional methods are not effective to recover destructed tissues, an alternative, compensatory, and adaptive procedure may be applied to restore the sequelae of the disease, applying a restorative method that respects the biology of involved tissues.

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.

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.