Clinical evaluation of flowable resin composite versus conventional resin composite in carious and noncarious lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Omar Osama Shaalan, Eman Abou-Auf, Amira Farid El Zoghby, Omar Osama Shaalan, Eman Abou-Auf, Amira Farid El Zoghby

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate clinical performance of flowable composite in carious and noncarious lesions. An electronic search was conducted using specific databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS) through March 2017. Clinical trials for restoration of carious and noncarious lesions were included with no date restrictions; follow-up was 6 months at least and dental restorations were evaluated using the United States Public Health Service criteria. The systematic search generated 908 papers, of which 35 papers were included for full-text review. Inclusion criteria were met by eight papers, six papers were for noncarious lesions and two papers were for restoration of carious lesions. The results of this review have shown no statistical or clinical difference between flowable and conventional composites for all tested outcomes in both carious and noncarious lesions. Both materials have shown clinically acceptable scores for all criteria, with no evidence of clinically unacceptable scores except in retention, with a retention rate of 83% in both materials after 36 months. Flowable composites had clinical efficacy after 3 years of service similar to that of conventional composite in both carious and noncarious lesions, these results are based on low quality of evidence. Based on the available literature and the best available evidence, flowable composites can be used in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions and minimally invasive occlusal cavities.

Keywords: Carious; clinical evaluation; flowable composite; noncarious.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA 2009 flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias assessment
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for different outcomes showing no clinical difference between both materials, (a) Retention, (b) Secondary caries, (c) Postoperative hypersensitivity, (d) Marginal discoloration, (e) Color match, (f) Anatomical form, (g) Marginal adaptation, (h) Surface texture

References

    1. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003;69:516–21.
    1. Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: A Systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9:ZE18–24.
    1. Abiodun-Solanke I, Ajayi D, Arigbede A. Nanotechnology and its application in dentistry. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4:S171–7.
    1. Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Three-year clinical evaluation of one-step in non-carious cervical lesions. Am J Dent. 2002;15:309–11.
    1. Baratieri LN, Canabarro S, Lopes GC, Ritter AV. Effect of resin viscosity and enamel beveling on the clinical performance of class V composite restorations: Three-year results. Oper Dent. 2003;28:482–7.
    1. Celik C, Ozgünaltay G, Attar N. Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: Two-year results. Oper Dent. 2007;32:313–21.
    1. Turner EW, Shook LW, Ross JA, deRijk W, Eason BC. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite in non-carious class V lesions: Two-year results. J Tenn Dent Assoc. 2008;88:20–4.
    1. Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Three-year clinical evaluation of a flowable and a hybrid resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2010;38:191–200.
    1. Karaman E, Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B. Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14:485–92.
    1. Rocha Gomes Torres C, Rêgo HM, Perote LC, Santos LF, Kamozaki MB, Gutierrez NC, et al. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations. J Dent. 2014;42:793–9.
    1. Lawson NC, Radhakrishnan R, Givan DA, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. Two-year randomized, controlled clinical trial of a flowable and conventional composite in class I restorations. Oper Dent. 2015;40:594–602.
    1. Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results. Eur J Dent. 2010;4:57–65.
    1. Kitasako Y, Sadr A, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Thirty-six month clinical evaluation of a highly filled flowable composite for direct posterior restorations. Aust Dent J. 2016;61:366–73.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner