nach oben

Erschienen in:

13.05.2022 | Original Article

Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up

verfasst von: Isis Almela Endo Hoshino, André Luiz Fraga Briso, Lara Maria Bueno Esteves, Paulo Henrique dos Santos, Sandra Meira Borghi Frascino, Ticiane Cestari Fagundes

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 9/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

This randomized, prospective, and split-mouth study aimed to evaluate flowable bulk-fill resin composites in class II restorations, comparing it with a conventional layering technique after 4-year follow-up.

Materials and methods

Fifty-three subjects received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional microhybrid composite resin (PA – Peak Universal + Amelogen Plus, Ultradent); flowable bulk-fill and nanoparticulate composite resins (ABF – Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Bulk Fill Flow + Filtek Z350XT, 3M/Espe); and flowable bulk-fill and microhybrid composite resins, (XST – XP Bond + SDR + TPH3, Dentsply). The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier, equality test of two proportions, Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Logistic regression analysis tests (alpha = 0.05).

Results

In total, 106 restorations were evaluated at 4 years. Both systems with bulk-fill composites presented higher marginal discoloration than PA. About surface texture, ABF restorative system showed superior bravo scores being statistically similar to XST. Better performance for wear and surface staining was found for XST restorative system. All restorative systems resulted in the decreased interproximal contacts, occurring early for XST.

Conclusions

The restorative systems that used flowable bulk-fill resin composites showed satisfactory clinical performance compared with conventional resin composite after 4 years. All restorative systems had decreased proximal contact after 4 years.

Clinical relevance

Initial marginal discoloration was observed in more than 50% of class II restorations performed with restorative systems that used flowable bulk-fill resin composite. All restorative systems had decreased proximal contact strength over time.

Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28:87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003CrossRefPubMed

Alonso V, Caserio M, Darriba IL (2019) Use of transparent tips for obtaining tight proximal contacts in direct class II composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 44:446–451. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-112-TCrossRefPubMed

El-Shamy H, Saber MH, Dörfer CE, El-Badrawy W, Loomans BAC (2012) Influence of volumetric shrinkage and curing light intensity on proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations: in vitro study. Oper Dent 37:205–210. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-269-LCrossRefPubMed

Ilie N, Stark K (2015) Effect of different curing protocols on the mechanical properties of low-viscosity bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 19:271–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1262-xCrossRefPubMed

Sabbagh J, McConnell RJ, McConnell MC (2017) Posterior composites: update on cavities and filling techniques. J Dent 57:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.010CrossRefPubMed

Torres CR, Jurema AL, Souza MY, Di Nicoló R, Borges AB (2021) Bulk-fill versus layering pure ormocer posterior restorations: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Am J Dent 34:143–149PubMed

Kruly PC, Giannini M, Pascotto RC, Tokubo LM, Suga USG, Marques ACR, Terada RSS (2018) Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin. PloS One 13:e0191942. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191942CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G (2015) Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.009CrossRef

Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P (2017) Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent 222:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.214CrossRef

10.

Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ (2019) Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 23:221–233 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7

11.

Balkaya H, Arslan S (2020) A two year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent 45:E32–E42. https://doi.org/10.2341/19-078-CCrossRefPubMed

12.

Guney T, Yazici AR (2019) 24-month clinical evaluation of different bulk-fill restorative resins in class II restorations. Oper Dent 45:123–133. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-144-CCrossRefPubMed

13.

Loguercio AD, Rezende M, Gutierrez MF, Costa TF, Armas-Vega A, Reis A (2019) Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk filled resin composite restorations. J Dent 85:93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.018CrossRefPubMed

14.

Durão MA, Andrade AKM, Santos MDCMDS, Montes MAJR, Monteiro GQM (2021) Clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composite restorations using the united states public health service and federation dentaire internationale criteria: a 12-month randomized clinical trial. Eur J Dent 15:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1718639CrossRefPubMed

15.

Suneelkumar C, Harshala P, Madhusudhana K, Lavanya A, Subha A, Swapna S (2021) Clinical performance of class I cavities restored with bulk fill composite at a 1-year follow-up using the FDI criteria: a randomized clinical trial. Restor Dent Endod 46:e24. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Berti LS, Turssi CP, Amaral FL, Basting RT, Junqueira JLC, Panzarella FK, Reis AF, França FM (2020) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of high viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations. Am J Dent 33:213–217PubMed

17.

Akman H, Tosun G (2020) Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: a 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children. Niger J Clin Pract 23:489–497. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19CrossRefPubMed

18.

Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K (2019) A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci 27:e20180678. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Hoffmann L, Neuerer C, Heck K, Kunzelmann KH (2021) Bulk-fill composites compared to a nanohybrid composite in class-II cavities - a two-year follow-up study. J Adhes Dent 1(23):389–396. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2000185CrossRef

20.

Heck K, Manhart J, Hickel R, Diegritz C (2018) Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT. Dent Mater 34:e138–e147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.023CrossRefPubMed

21.

van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2017) Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation. Eur J Oral Sci 125:303–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12351CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson AS (2021) Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 26:417–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04015-2CrossRefPubMed

23.

Frascino S, Fagundes TC, Silva U, Rahal V, Barboza A, Santos PH, Briso A (2019) Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using low-shrinkage flowable resin composite. Oper Dent 45:19–29. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-230-CCrossRefPubMed

24.

Moda MD, Briso AF, Hoshino IAE, Frascino SMB, Santos PH, Gonçalves DM, Fagundes TC (2021) Three-year randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 14 Online ahead of print https://doi.org/10.2341/20-031-C

25.

Teich ST, Joseph J, Sartori N, Heima M, Duarte S (2014) Dental floss selection and its impact on evaluation of interproximal contacts in licensure exams. J Dent Educ 78:921–926. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2014.78.6.tb05746.xCrossRefPubMed

26.

Zhu H, Zhang S, Ahn C (2017) Sample size considerations for split-mouth design. Stat Methods Med Res 26:2543–2551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215601137CrossRefPubMed

27.

Council on Scientific Affairs (2001) Resin based composites for posterior restorations: Acceptance Program Guidelines American Dental Association, Chicago https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0204

28.

Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E (2017) Thirty-six-month clinical comparison of bulk fill and nanofill composite restorations. Oper Dent 42:478–485. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-220-CCrossRefPubMed

29.

van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2015) Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self- -etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 17:81–88. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a33502CrossRefPubMed

30.

van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2016) Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations. A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent 51:29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.008CrossRefPubMed

31.

Splieth CH, Kanzow P, Wiegand A, Schmoeckel J, Jablonski-Momeni A (2020) How to intervene in the caries process: proximal caries in adolescents and adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 24:1623–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03201-yCrossRefPubMed

32.

Correia A, Jurema A, Andrade MR, Borges A, Bresciani E, Caneppele T (2020) Clinical evaluation of noncarious cervical lesions of different extensions restored with bulk-fill or conventional resin composite: preliminary results of a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 45:e11–e20. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-256-CCrossRefPubMed

33.

Alshali RZ, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD (2013) Degree of conversion of bulk-fill compared to conventional resin-composites at two time intervals. Dent Mater 29(9):e213–e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.05.011CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ilie N, Hickel R (2011) Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. Dent Mater 27:348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.11.014CrossRefPubMed

35.

Pardo Díaz CA, Shimokawa C, Sampaio CS, Freitas AZ, Turbino ML (2019) Characterization and comparative analysis of voids in class II composite resin restorations by optical coherence tomography. Oper Dent 45:71–79. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-290-LCrossRefPubMed

36.

Lum IR, Martos R, Szalóki M, Lynch CD, Hegedűs C (2021) Effects of different surface treatments and adhesive self-etch functional monomers on the repair of bulk fill composites: a randomised controlled study. J Dent 108:103637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103637CrossRef

37.

Al-Harbi F, Kaisarly D, Bader D, El Gezawi M (2016) Marginal integrity of bulk versus incremental fill class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 41:146–156. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-306-LCrossRefPubMed

38.

Campos EA, Ardu S, Lefever D, Jassé FF, Bortolotto T, Krejci I (2014) Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42(5):575–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.007CrossRefPubMed

39.

Algamaiah H, Sampaio CS, Rigo LC, Janal MN, Giannini M, Bonfante EA, Hirata R (2017) Microcomputed tomography evaluation of volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class II cavities. J Esthet Restor Dent 29:118–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12275CrossRefPubMed

40.

Gerula-Szymańska A, Kaczor K, Lewusz-Butkiewicz K, Nowicka A (2020) Marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill materials used for class II restorations -a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dent Mater J https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2018-180

41.

Peutzfeldt A, Mühlebach S, Lussi A, Flury S (2018) Marginal gap formation in approximal “bulk fill” resin composite restorations after artificial ageing. Oper Dent 43(2):180–189. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-068-LCrossRefPubMed

42.

Han SH, Park SH (2017) Comparison of internal adaptation in class II bulk-fill composite restorations using micro-CT. Oper Dent 42:203–214. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-023-LCrossRefPubMed

43.

Haak R, Näke T, Park KJ, Ziebolz D, Krause F, Schneider H (2019) Internal and marginal adaptation of high-viscosity bulk-fill composites in class II cavities placed with different adhesive strategies. Odontology 107:374–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-018-0402-1CrossRefPubMed

44.

Gajewski V, Pfeifer CS, Fróes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR (2012) Monomers used in resin composites: degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J. 23:508–514. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-64402012000500007CrossRefPubMed

45.

Rahim TN, Mohamad D, Md Akil H, Ab Rahman I (2012) Water sorption characteristics of restorative dental composites immersed in acidic drinks. Dent Mater 28:e63–e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.03.011CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ferracane JL (2006) Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22:211–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.005CrossRefPubMed

47.

van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, Van Meerbeek B (2017) Bulk-fill composites: a review of the current literature. J Adhes Dent 19:95–109. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a38141CrossRefPubMed

48.

Soares CJ, Faria-E-Silva AL, Rodrigues MP, Vilela ABF, Pfeifer CS, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A (2017) Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and resin cements - what do we need to know? Braz Oral Res 28(suppl 1):e62, . https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107CrossRef

49.

El Aziz RH, Mohammed MM, Gomaa HA (2020) Clinical performance of short-fiber-reinforced resin composite restorations vs resin composite onlay restorations in complex cavities of molars (Randomized Clinical Trial). J Contemp Dent Pract 1(21):296–303

Titel: Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up
verfasst von: Isis Almela Endo Hoshino
André Luiz Fraga Briso
Lara Maria Bueno Esteves
Paulo Henrique dos Santos
Sandra Meira Borghi Frascino
Ticiane Cestari Fagundes
Publikationsdatum: 13.05.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 9/2022
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04526-6

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up