One-Year Clinical Performance of the Fast-Modelling Bulk Technique and Composite-Up Layering Technique in Class I Cavities

Louis Hardan, Layla Sidawi, Murad Akhundov, Rim Bourgi, Maroun Ghaleb, Sarah Dabbagh, Krzysztof Sokolowski, Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez, Monika Lukomska-Szymanska, Louis Hardan, Layla Sidawi, Murad Akhundov, Rim Bourgi, Maroun Ghaleb, Sarah Dabbagh, Krzysztof Sokolowski, Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez, Monika Lukomska-Szymanska

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the one year clinical performance of a new application method, the Fast-Modelling Bulk Technique (FMBT), in comparison to the Composite-Up Layering Technique (CULT) in posterior cavities. Thirty patients with two class I cavities on permanent human molars were enrolled in the present study. A total of sixty class I cavities were prepared and randomly divided according to the restoration technique used: 30 cavities restored by incremental layering technique and modelling of the last layer with Composite-Up Technique (CUT) using the composite Filtek Z250XT (3M ESPE; St. Paul, MN, USA) and the other 30 restored by Bulk Filling technique and modelling of the last layer by Fast-Modelling Technique (FMT) using the composite Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (3M ESPE; St. Paul, MN, USA). Restorations were evaluated for up to one year by two observers according to Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria, through clinical and radiological exams. Exact Fisher tests were used for statistical analysis. (p ≤ 0.05). From a biological perspective, at baseline, teeth restored with both techniques did not reveal any postoperative sensitivity. However, with time, FMBT showed less postoperative sensitivity and therefore more desirable results than CULT with a nonsignificant difference after one year (p > 0.05). Concerning secondary caries, fracture of the material, and marginal adaptation, no significant difference was noted between both techniques (p > 0.05). Regarding marginal staining, CULT resulted in more staining with a significant difference, as compared to FMBT (p < 0.05). Upon radiological examination, FMBT showed a good marginal fit during the first year, whereas CULT showed small empty voids from baseline with a nonsignificant difference (p = 1.00). After one year of clinical function, both techniques showed promising results. The present study indicates that the new FMBT could have a positive effect on the marginal staining of resin composite.

Keywords: bulk fill; class I; nanohybrid composite; polymerization stress; resin composites.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
FMBT on class I molar cavity. (A) Bulk-fill adaptation using micro-brush; (B) first cut of the composite following the remaining fissure with the help of LM Arte fissura; (C) drawing the fissures by cutting the composite following the remaining fissures and the anatomy of the teeth; (D) cusps were brought together in harmony using a microbrush by reducing the volume of the gap created by cutting the composite; (E) stains were applied to give the restoration some aesthetic and 3D appearance; and (F) final restoration.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Description of FMBT and CULT on two class I cavities, where 16 shows the FMBT and 17 shows the CULT. (A) Preoperative situation; (B) cavity preparation and rubber dam placement; (C) phosphoric acid applied first on enamel before being applied on dentin; (D) FMBT on 16 and CULT on 17, and some stains were applied to give the restoration a 3D effect; (E) immediately after finishing and polishing; and (F) 1 year follow-up.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Absence of sensitivity in restored teeth with FMBT and CULT over time.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Absence of secondary caries in teeth restored with FMBT and CULT over time.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Absence of fracture for teeth restored with FMBT and CULT over time.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Absence of secondary caries in teeth restored with FMBT and CULT over time.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Marginal adaptation observed radiologically for FMBT and CULT over time.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Absence of marginal staining with FMBT and CULT over time.

References

    1. Celik C., Arhun N., Yamanel K. Clinical Evaluation of Resin-Based Composites in Posterior Restorations: 12-Month Results. Eur. J. Dent. 2010;4:057–065. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1697809.
    1. El-Banna A., Sherief D., Fawzy A.S. Advanced Dental Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing; Cambridge, UK: 2019. Resin-based dental composites for tooth filling; pp. 127–173.
    1. Miletic V. Dental Composite Materials for Direct Restorations. Springer; Cham, Switzerland: 2018. Development of Dental Composites; pp. 3–9.
    1. Soares C.J., Faria-E-Silva A.L., Rodrigues M.D.P., Vilela A.B.F., Pfeifer C.S., Tantbirojn D., Versluis A. Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and resin cements—What do we need to know? Braz. Oral Res. 2017;31 doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0062.
    1. Arbildo-Vega H., Lapinska B., Panda S., Lamas-Lara C., Khan A., Lukomska-Szymanska M. Clinical Effectiveness of Bulk-Fill and Conventional Resin Composite Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers. 2020;12:1786. doi: 10.3390/polym12081786.
    1. Hardan L., Lukomska-Szymanska M., Zarow M., Cuevas-Suárez C.E., Bourgi R., Jakubowicz N., Sokolowski K., D’Arcangelo C. One-Year Clinical Aging of Low Stress Bulk-Fill Flowable Composite in Class II Restorations: A Case Report and Literature Review. Coatings. 2021;11:504. doi: 10.3390/coatings11050504.
    1. Hardan L., Bourgi R., Kharouf N., Mancino D., Zarow M., Jakubowicz N., Haikel Y., Cuevas-Suárez C. Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers. 2021;13:814. doi: 10.3390/polym13050814.
    1. Hardan L.S., Amm E.W., Ghayad A. Effect of different modes of light curing and resin composites on microleakage of Class II restorations. Odontostomatol. Trop. 2008;31:27–34.
    1. Hardan L.S., Amm E.W., Ghayad A., Ghosn C., Khraisat A. Effect of different modes of light curing and resin composites on microleakage of Class II restorations—Part II. Odontostomatol. Trop. 2009;32:29–37.
    1. Comba A., Scotti N., Maravić T., Mazzoni A., Carossa M., Breschi L., Cadenaro M. Vickers Hardness and Shrinkage Stress Evaluation of Low and High Viscosity Bulk-Fill Resin Composite. Polymers. 2020;12:1477. doi: 10.3390/polym12071477.
    1. Bucuta S., Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin. Oral Investig. 2014;18:1991–2000. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1177-y.
    1. Rudrapati L., Chandrasekhar V., Badami V., Tummala M. Incremental techniques in direct composite restoration. J. Conserv. Dent. 2017;20:386–391. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_157_16.
    1. Kim M., Park S. Comparison of Premolar Cuspal Deflection in Bulk or in Incremental Composite Restoration Methods. Oper. Dent. 2011;36:326–334. doi: 10.2341/10-315-L.
    1. Yuan J.-X., Yang K.-Y., Ma J., Wang Z.-Z., Guo Q.-Y., Liu F. Step-by-step teaching method: Improving learning outcomes of undergraduate dental students in layering techniques for direct composite resin restorations. BMC Med. Educ. 2020;20:300. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02230-1.
    1. Purk J.H., Dusevich V., Glaros A., Eick J.D. Adhesive analysis of voids in class II composite resin restorations at the axial and gingival cavity walls restored under in vivo versus in vitro conditions. Dent. Mater. 2007;23:871–877. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.07.001.
    1. Kaisarly D., El Gezawi M., Keßler A., Rösch P., Kunzelmann K.-H. Shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites: Bulk versus incremental application. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021;25:1127–1139. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03412-3.
    1. Boaro L.C.C., Lopes D.P., de Souza A.S.C., Nakano E.L., Perez M.D.A., Pfeifer C.S., Gonçalves F. Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin —a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent. Mater. 2019;35:e249–e264. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.007.
    1. Rosatto C., Bicalho A., Veríssimo C., Bragança G., Rodrigues M., Tantbirojn D., Versluis A., Soares C. Mechanical properties, shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and incremental filling technique. J. Dent. 2015;43:1519–1528. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.09.007.
    1. Kim Y.-J., Kim R.J.Y., Ferracane J., Lee I.-B. Influence of the Compliance and Layering Method on the Wall Deflection of Simulated Cavities in Bulk-fill Composite Restoration. Oper. Dent. 2016;41:e183–e194. doi: 10.2341/15-260-L.
    1. Van Dijken J.W., Pallesen U. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J. Dent. 2016;51:29–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.008.
    1. Azeem R.A., Sureshbabu N.M. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review. J. Conserv. Dent. 2018;21:2–9.
    1. El-Damanhoury H., Platt J.A. Polymerization Shrinkage Stress Kinetics and Related Properties of Bulk-fill Resin Composites. Oper. Dent. 2014;39:374–382. doi: 10.2341/13-017-L.
    1. De Assis F.S., Lima S.N.L., Tonetto M.R., Bhandi S.H., Pinto S.C.S., Malaquias P., Loguercio A.D., Bandéca M.C. Evaluation of Bond Strength, Marginal Integrity, and Fracture Strength of Bulk- vs Incrementally-filled Restorations. J. Adhes. Dent. 2016;18:317–323.
    1. Veloso S.R.M., Lemos C.A.A., Moraes S., Vasconcelos B.C.D.E., Pellizzer E.P., Monteiro G.Q.D.M. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018;23:221–233. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7.
    1. Sajnani A.R., Hegde M.N. Leaching of monomers from bulk-fill composites: An in vitro study. J. Conserv. Dent. 2016;19:482–486. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.190020.
    1. Lazarchik D.A., Hammond B.D., Sikes C.L., Looney S.W., Rueggeberg F.A. Hardness comparison of bulk-filled/transtooth and incremental-filled/occlusally irradiated composite resins. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2007;98:129–140. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60046-8.
    1. Abbasi M., Moradi Z., Mirzaei M., Kharazifard M.J., Rezaei S. Polymerization Shrinkage of Five Bulk-Fill Resin compo-sites in Comparison with a Conventional Resin composite. J. Dent. 2018;15:365–374.
    1. Tomaszewska I.M., Kearns J.O., Ilie N., Fleming G.J. Bulk fill restoratives: To cap or not to cap—That is the question? J. Dent. 2015;43:309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.010.
    1. Hoseinifar R., Mortazavi-Lahijani E., Mollahassani H., Ghaderi A. One Year Clinical Evaluation of a Low Shrinkage Composite Compared with a Packable Composite Resin: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Dent. 2017;14:84–91.
    1. Berkowitz G.S., Spielman H., Matthews A.G., Vena D., Craig R.G., Curro F.A., Thompson V.P. Postoperative hypersensitivity and its rela-tionship to preparation variables in Class I resin-based composite restorations: Findings from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning (PEARL) Network. Part 1. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2013;34:e44–e52.
    1. Auschill T.M., Koch C.A., Wolkewitz M., Hellwig E., Arweiler N.B. Occurrence and Causing Stimuli of Postoperative Sensitivity in Composite Restorations. Oper. Dent. 2009;34:3–10. doi: 10.2341/08-7.
    1. Perdigão J. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion—Not there yet. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2020;56:190–207. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.08.004.
    1. Sancakli H.S., Yildiz E., Bayrak I., Özel S. Effect of different adhesive strategies on the post-operative sensitivity of class I composite restorations. Eur. J. Dent. 2014;8:15–22. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.126234.
    1. Casselli D.S.M., Martins L.R.M. Postoperative sensitivity in Class I composite resin restorations in vivo. J. Adhes. Dent. 2006;8:53–58.
    1. Costa T., Rezende M., Sakamoto A., Bittencourt B., Dalzochio P., Loguercio A.D., Reis A. Influence of Adhesive Type and Placement Technique on Postoperative Sensitivity in Posterior Composite Restorations. Oper. Dent. 2017;42:143–154. doi: 10.2341/16-010-C.
    1. Opdam N., Roeters F., Feilzer A., Verdonschot E. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J. Dent. 1998;26:555–562. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00042-0.
    1. Plant C.G., Anderson R.J. The effect of cavity depth on the pulpal response to restorative materials. Br. Dent. J. 1978;144:10–13. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4804016.
    1. Tantbirojn D., Versluis A., Pintado M.R., DeLong R., Douglas W.H. Tooth deformation patterns in molars after composite restoration. Dent. Mater. 2004;20:535–542. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.008.
    1. Sobral M., Luz M.A.A.C., Santos A.P., Garone-Netto N. Prevention of postoperative tooth sensitivity: A preliminary clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2005;32:661–668. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01479.x.
    1. Van Dijken J.W., Pallesen U. A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations. Dent. Mater. 2013;29:191–198. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.08.013.
    1. Dennison J.B., Sarrett D.C. Prediction and diagnosis of clinical outcomes affecting restoration margins. J. Oral Rehabil. 2011;39:301–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02267.x.
    1. Wang Y., Li C., Yuan H., Wong M.C., Zou J., Shi Z., Zhou X. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016;9:CD009858. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub2.
    1. Samet N., Kwon K.-R., Good P., Weber H.-P. Voids and interlayer gaps in Class 1 posterior composite restorations: A comparison between a microlayer and a 2-layer technique. Quintessence Int. 2006;37:803–809.
    1. Orłowski M., Tarczydło B., Chałas R. Evaluation of Marginal Integrity of Four Bulk-Fill Dental Composite Materials:In VitroStudy. Sci. World J. 2015;2015:1–8. doi: 10.1155/2015/701262.
    1. Furness A., Tadros M.Y., Looney S.W., Rueggeberg F. Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites. J. Dent. 2014;42:439–449. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.005.
    1. Kwon Y., Ferracane J., Lee I.-B. Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites. Dent. Mater. 2012;28:801–809. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.028.
    1. Abbas G., Fleming G., Harrington E., Shortall A., Burke F. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with a packable composite cured in bulk or in increments. J. Dent. 2003;31:437–444. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00121-5.
    1. Skałecka-Sądel A., Grzebieluch W. The marginal sealing of class II resin composite restoration located in enam-el—Evaluation in vitro. Dent. Med. Prob. 2012;49:502–509.
    1. Yazici A.R., Antonson S.A., Kutuk Z.B., Ergin E. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations. Oper. Dent. 2017;42:478–485. doi: 10.2341/16-220-C.
    1. Van Ende A., De Munck J., Van Landuyt K.L., Poitevin A., Peumans M., Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: Effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent. Mater. 2013;29:269–277. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.11.002.
    1. Agarwal R.S., Hiremath H., Agarwal J., Garg A. Evaluation of cervical marginal and internal adaptation using newer bulk fill composites: An in vitro study. J. Conserv. Dent. 2015;18:56–61. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.148897.
    1. Roggendorf M.J., Krämer N., Appelt A., Naumann M., Frankenberger R. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J. Dent. 2011;39:643–647. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.07.004.
    1. Nedeljkovic I., Teughels W., De Munck J., Van Meerbeek B., Van Landuyt K.L. Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem? Dent. Mater. 2015;31:e247–e277. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001.
    1. Dukic W., Delija B., DeRossi D., Dadic I. Radiopacity of composite dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent. Mater. J. 2012;31:47–53. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2011-119.
    1. Finan L., Palin W.M., Moskwa N., McGinley E.L., Fleming G.J. The influence of irradiation potential on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of two bulk-fill flowable RBC base materials. Dent. Mater. 2013;29:906–912. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.05.008.
    1. Yaşa B., Kucukyilmaz E., Yasa E., Ertas E.T. Comparative study of radiopacity of resin-based and glass ionomer-based bulk-fill restoratives using digital radiography. J. Oral Sci. 2015;57:79–85. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.57.79.
    1. Koc-Vural U., Baltacioglu I., Altinci P. Color stability of bulk-fill and incremental-fill resin-based composites polished with aluminum-oxide impregnated disks. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2017;42:118–124. doi: 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.118.
    1. Barakah H.M., Taher N.M. Effect of polishing systems on stain susceptibility and surface roughness of nanocomposite resin material. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014;112:625–631. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.007.
    1. Gönülol N., Yılmaz F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. J. Dent. 2012;40:e64–e70. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.005.
    1. Baroudi K., Kaminedi R.R., Penumatsa N.V., Priya T. The influence of finishing/polishing time and cooling system on surface roughness and microhardness of two different types of composite resin restorations. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2014;4:S99–S104. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.146211.
    1. Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Pract. Proced. Aesthet. Dent. 2004;16:211–217.
    1. Loguercio A., Rezende M., Gutierrez M., Costa T., Armas-Vega A., Reis A. Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations. J. Dent. 2019;85:93–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.018.
    1. Hirata R., Kabbach W., De Andrade O.S., Bonfante E.A., Giannini M., Coelho P.G. Bulk Fill Composites: An Anatomic Sculpting Technique. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2015;27:335–343. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12159.
    1. Brunthaler A., König F., Lucas T., Sperr W., Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: A review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2003;7:63–70. doi: 10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7.
    1. Opdam N., Collares K., Hickel R., Bayne S., Loomans B., Cenci M., Lynch C., Correa M., Demarco F., Schwendicke F., et al. Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: New directions and new demands. Dent. Mater. 2018;34:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.187.
    1. Beck F., Lettner S., Graf A., Bitriol B., Dumitrescu N., Bauer P., Moritz A., Schedle A. Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996–2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Dent. Mater. 2015;31:958–985. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.004.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe