Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Microhybrid versus nanofill composite in combination with a three step etch and rinse adhesive in occlusal cavities: five year results

  • Tuncer, Safa (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry) ;
  • Demirci, Mustafa (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry) ;
  • Oztas, Evren (Department of Orthodontics, Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry) ;
  • Tekce, Neslihan (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Kocaeli University Faculty of Dentistry) ;
  • Uysal, Omer (Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.01.17
  • Accepted : 2017.07.15
  • Published : 2017.11.08
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of occlusal carious restorations using nanofill and microhybrid composites, in combination with 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesives, in patients who were going to commence orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: A total of 118 restorations for occlusal caries were conducted prior to orthodontic treatment. Occlusal restorations were performed both with Filtek Supreme XT (3M ESPE) and Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) before beginning orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic bands. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year recalls. Results: None of the microhybrid (Filtek Z250) and nanofill (Filtek Supreme XT) composite restorations was clinically unacceptable with respect to color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, recurrent caries, marginal adaptation, or surface texture. A 100% success rate was recorded for both composite materials. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the clinical evaluation criteria between Filtek Z250 and Filtek Supreme XT restorations for each evaluation period. Conclusions: The composite restorations showed promising clinical results relating to color matching, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, recurrent caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture at the end of the 5-year evaluation period.

Keywords

References

  1. Uribe FA, Chandhoke TK, Nanda R. Individualized orthodontic diagnosis. In: Nanda R, editor. Esthetics and biomechanics in orthodontics. 2nd ed. St. Louis (MA): Elsevier Saunders; 2015. p1-32.
  2. Bourzgui F, Sebbar M, Hamza M. Orthodontics and caries. In: Naretto S, editor. Principles in contemporary orthodontics. Rijeka: INTECH; 2011. p309-326.
  3. Chaussain C, Opsahl Vital S, Viallon V, Vermelin L, Haignere C, Sixou M, Lasfargues JJ. Interest in a new test for caries risk in adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:177-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0276-2
  4. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, Shearer AC, Vanherle G, Wilson NHAcademy of Operative Dentistry European Section. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 2014;42:377-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.009
  5. Ferracane JL. Current trends in dental composites. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1995;6:302-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411950060040301
  6. Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J 2011;56 Supplement 1:59-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01296.x
  7. de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Monteiro GQ, Montes MA. Resin composite class I restorations: a 54-month randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 2014;39:588-594. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-067-C
  8. Ferracane JL. Resin composite--state of the art. Dent Mater 2011;27:29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020
  9. Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M. Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites. J Dent 2012;40:766-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.05.010
  10. Wolff D, Kraus T, Schach C, Pritsch M, Mente J, Staehle HJ, Ding P. Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a clinical evaluation of survival and quality parameters. J Dent 2010;38:1001-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.08.017
  11. Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: a micro-CT investigation. J Dent 2011;39:154-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.11.006
  12. de Souza Costa CA, Teixeira HM, Lopes do Nascimento AB, Hebling J. Biocompatibility of resin-based dental materials applied as liners in deep cavities prepared in human teeth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;81:175-184.
  13. Demirci M, Uysal O. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract AP) in Class I cavities: 3-year results. Am J Dent 2006;19:376-381.
  14. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP. A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1245-1253. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0359
  15. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30:347-358.
  16. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:215-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z
  17. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig's restorative dental materials. 13th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Elsevier Mosby; 2012. p166-167.
  18. 3M Dental Products Laboratory (US). $Filtek^{TM}$ Z250 universal restorative system: technical product profile. St. Paul (MN): 3M; 1998.
  19. Cetin AR, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Oper Dent 2013;38:E1-E11. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-436-L
  20. Lempel E, Toth A, Fabian T, Krajczar K, Szalma J. Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings. Dent Mater 2015;31:115-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.001
  21. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006;34:427-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.006
  22. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004;29:481-508.
  23. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28:87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003
  24. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas M. Influence of food-simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent 2005;33:389-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.10.018
  25. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:237-243.
  26. Wilder AD Jr, May KN Jr, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:135-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00390.x
  27. Baldissera RA, Correa MB, Schuch HS, Collares K, Nascimento GG, Jardim PS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth? J Dent 2013;41:1027-1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.08.016
  28. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 2011;27:955-963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.06.001
  29. Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P. Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:399-404.

Cited by

  1. Enhanced mechanical properties are possible with urethane dimethacrylate-based experimental restorative dental composite vol.7, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/abbf7f
  2. A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives vol.8, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1939034