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

Safa Tuncer, Mustafa Demirci, Evren Öztaş, Neslihan Tekçe, Ömer Uysal, Safa Tuncer, Mustafa Demirci, Evren Öztaş, Neslihan Tekçe, Ömer Uysal

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: Clinical performance; Dental composite; Occlusal restoration; Orthodontics.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram showing evaluation history of restorations.

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. pp. 1–32.
    1. Bourzgui F, Sebbar M, Hamza M. Orthodontics and caries. In: Naretto S, editor. Principles in contemporary orthodontics. Rijeka: INTECH; 2011. pp. 309–326.
    1. 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.
    1. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, Shearer AC, Vanherle G, Wilson NH, Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent. 2014;42:377–383.
    1. Ferracane JL. Current trends in dental composites. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1995;6:302–318.
    1. Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 2011;56(Supplement 1):59–66.
    1. 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.
    1. Ferracane JL. Resin composite--state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27:29–38.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J. 1980;30:347–358.
    1. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig. 2005;9:215–232.
    1. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig's restorative dental materials. 13th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Elsevier Mosby; 2012. pp. 166–167.
    1. 3M Dental Products Laboratory (US) Filtek™ Z250 universal restorative system: technical product profile. St. Paul (MN): 3M; 1998.
    1. 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.
    1. Lempel E, Tóth Á, Fábián T, Krajczár K, Szalma J. Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings. Dent Mater. 2015;31:115–122.
    1. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguércio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent. 2006;34:427–435.
    1. 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.
    1. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28:87–101.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Baldissera RA, Corrêa 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.
    1. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguércio 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.
    1. 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.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa