A 24-Month Evaluation of Self-Adhering Flowable Composite Compared to Conventional Flowable Composite in Conservative Simple Occlusal Restorations: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Omar Osama Shaalan, Eman Abou-Auf, Omar Osama Shaalan, Eman Abou-Auf

Abstract

Background: Self-adhering flowable composite (SAFC) simplified restorative procedures, especially when compared to conventional techniques. Self-adhering composite revolutionized restorative dentistry by merging advances of adhesive and restorative materials to generate the so-called "eighth generation."

Aims: The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the clinical performance of SAFC compared to conventional flowable composite in minimally invasive occlusal cavities.

Settings and design: A total of 18 patients with conservative occlusal cavities received randomly two types of restorations in a split-mouth design.

Materials and methods: Vertise™ Flow or Filtek™ Z350XT Flowable was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. All restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 24 months, respectively, by two blinded assessors using modified USPHS criteria.

Statistical analysis used: Chi-square test was used for intragroup comparison between time points and intergroup comparison within each time point. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Relative risk was used to determine the clinical significance.

Results: The results of the current study have revealed no statistically significant difference between both materials for all tested outcomes at baseline and after 24 months.

Conclusions: SAFC revealed satisfactory clinical performance in restoration of minimally invasive occlusal cavities after 24-month follow-up.

Keywords: 24 months; USPHS; clinical evaluation; flowable; resin composite; self-adhering.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Copyright: © 2021 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort flow diagram showing the process of case selection
Figure 2
Figure 2
Clinical evaluation using modified USPHS criteria after 24 months. (a) Vertise[TM] Flow (alpha); (b) Vertise[TM] Flow (nonalpha); (c) Filtek[TM] Z350XT Flowable (alpha); (d) Filtek[TM] Z350XT Flowable (nonalpha)

References

    1. Bonilla ED, Stevenson RG, Caputo AA, White SN. Microleakage resistance of minimally invasive Class I flowable composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2012;37:290–8.
    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. Abiodun-Solanke I, Ajayi D, Arigbede A. Nanotechnology and its application in dentistry. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4:S171–7.
    1. Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Suyama Y, Mine A, Peumans M, et al. Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater. 2013;29:221–30.
    1. Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71:541–6.
    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. Ostlund J, Möller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars-a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J. 1992;16:81–6.
    1. Vichi A, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Clinical study of the self-adhering flowable composite resin vertise flow in class I restorations: Six-month follow-up. Int Dent SA. 2010;12:14–23.
    1. Cadenaro M, Marchesi G, Antoniolli F, Davidson C, De Stefano Dorigo E, Breschi L. Flowability of composites is no guarantee for contraction stress reduction. Dent Mater. 2009;25:649–54.
    1. Shaalan OO, Abou-Auf E, El Zoghby AF. Clinical evaluation of flowable resin composite versus conventional resin composite in carious and noncarious lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20:380–5.
    1. Rengo C, Goracci C, Juloski J, Chieffi N, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, et al. Influence of phosphoric acid etching on microleakage of a self-etch adhesive and a self-adhering composite. Aust Dent J. 2012;57:220–6.
    1. Serin BA, Yazicioglu I, Deveci C, Dogan MC. Clinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite as occlusal restorative material in primary molars: One-year results. Eur Oral Res. 2019;53:119–24.
    1. Sabbagh J, Dagher S, El Osta N, Souhaid P. Randomized clinical trial of a self-adhering flowable composite for class I restorations: 2-year results. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:1–7.
    1. Wang R, Shi Y, Li T, Pan Y, Cui Y, Xia W. Adhesive interfacial characteristics and the related bonding performance of four self-etching adhesives with different functional monomers applied to dentin. J Dent. 2017;62:72–80.
    1. Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Okihara T, Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B. Chemical interaction of glycero-phosphate dimethacrylate (GPDM) with hydroxyapatite and dentin. Dent Mater. 2018;34:1072–81.
    1. Hoshika S, Kameyama A, Suyama Y, De Munck J, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. GPDM- and 10-MDP-based self-etch adhesives bonded to bur-cut and uncut enamel “immediate” and “aged” μTBS. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20:113–20.
    1. Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2014;30:1089–103.
    1. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2015;43:1229–34.
    1. Çelik EU, Aka B, Yilmaz F. Six-month clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive flowable composite in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17:361–8.
    1. Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S. Evaluation of different fissure sealant materials and flowable composites used as pit-and-fissure sealants: A 24-month clinical trial. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37:468–73.
    1. Yalcin Cakir F, Firat E, Ak Oztas SS, Oz FD, Gurgan S. 18-months clinical evaluation of a self – Adhering flowable composite in class I-cavities. J Dent Res. 2014;93:1152.
    1. Shaalan OO, Abou-Auf E, El Zoghby AF. Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial. J Conserv Dent. 2018;21:485–90.
    1. Oz FD, Ergin E, Cakir FY, Gurgan S. Clinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable resin composite in minimally invasive class I cavities: 5-year results of a double blind randomized, controlled clinical trial. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020;54:10–21.
    1. Wei YJ, Silikas N, Zhang ZT, Watts DC. Diffusion and concurrent solubility of self-adhering and new resin-matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dent Mater. 2011;27:197–205.
    1. Prakki A, Cilli R, Mondelli RF, Kalachandra S, Pereira JC. Influence of pH environment on polymer based dental material properties. J Dent. 2005;33:91–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner