nach oben

Clinical Oral Investigations

Erschienen in:

12.06.2018 | Original Article

One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions

verfasst von: Gabriela D. Canali, Sergio A. Ignácio, Rodrigo N. Rached, Evelise M. Souza

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this double-blind, randomized trial was to evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill flowable and a regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

Methods

Twenty-two subjects with at least two NCCLs were enrolled in the study. A total of 89 restorations were performed by a single operator using Filtek Supreme (FS) Ultra Universal or Filtek Bulk (FB) Fill Flowable. A universal adhesive (Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive) was used with a self-etching approach in dentin. The restorations were evaluated by two independent and previously calibrated examiners at baseline (7 days), 6 months and 1 year, according to the USPHS modified criteria. Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze the differences between composites and Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparisons between the baseline and follow-ups (α = 5%).

Results

One restoration was considered clinically unacceptable due to loss of retention after 6 months in the FS group. FS presented statistically high scores for surface roughness when compared to FB after 1 year (p < 0.05), but both were considered clinically acceptable. After 1 year, the frequency of clinically unacceptable rates was 3.3% for anatomical form in the FB group, 1.1% for retention in the FS group, and 2.2% for marginal adaptation in both groups. All restorations, in both groups, presented score 0 over the 1-year period for marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries.

Conclusion

Both composite resins showed acceptable clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1 year.

Clinical relevance

Both bulk-fill flowable and regular nanofilled composites showed good clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1 year.

Mair LH (1992) Wear in dentistry—current terminology. J Dent 20:140–144CrossRef

Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Cohen RE (2005) Toothbrush abrasions and noncarious cervical lesions: evolving concepts. Compend Contin Educ Dent 26:767–768 770–774, 776PubMed

Bartlett DW, Shah P (2006) A critical review of non-carious cervical (wear) lesions and the role of abfraction, erosion, and abrasion. J Dent Res 85:306–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910608500405CrossRefPubMed

Grippo JO (1991) Abfractions: a new classification of hard tissue lesions of teeth. J Esthet Dent 3:14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1991.tb00799.xCrossRefPubMed

Grippo JO, Simring M, Coleman TA (2012) Abfraction, abrasion, biocorrosion, and the enigma of noncarious cervical lesions: a 20-year perspective. J Esthet Restor Dent 24:10–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00487.xCrossRefPubMed

Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B (2014) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater 30:1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.007CrossRefPubMed

Pecie R, Krejci I, García-Godoy F, Bortolotto T (2011) Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: restoration. Am J Dent 24:183–192PubMed

Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, Hayashi Y (2010) Three-year clinical evaluation of a flowable and a hybrid resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 38:191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.10.003CrossRefPubMed

Moretto SG, Russo EM, Carvalho RC, De Munck J et al (2013) 3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesion. J Dent 41:675–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.016CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO (2015) Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 43:1229–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Van Meerbeek B (2015) Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 31:308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.005CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ichim I, Li Q, Loughran J, Swain MV et al (2007) Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions Part I. Modelling of restorative fracture. Dent Mater 23:1553–1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.003CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ichim I, Schmidlin PR, Kieser JA, Swain MV (2007) Mechanical evaluation of cervical glass-ionomer restorations: 3D finite element study. J Dent 35:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.04.003CrossRefPubMed

14.

Ilie N, Hickel R (2009) Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 13:427–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0258-4CrossRefPubMed

15.

Czasch P, Ilie N (2013) In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 17:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8CrossRefPubMed

16.

Leprince J, Palin WM, Mullier T, Devaux J et al (2010) Investigating filler morphology and mechanical properties of new low-shrinkage resin composite types. J Oral Rehabil 37:364–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02066CrossRefPubMed

17.

Arslan S, Demirbuga S, Ustun Y, Dincer AN et al (2013) The effect of a new-generation flowable composite resin on microleakage in class V composite restorations as an intermediate layer. J Conserv Dent 16:189–193. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.111311CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Scotti N, Comba A, Gambino A, Paolino DS et al (2014) Microleakage at enamel and dentin margins with a bulk fills flowable resin. Eur J Dent 8:1–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.126230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H (2017) One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent 8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12210CrossRef

20.

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

21.

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

22.

Smith BG, Knight JK (1984) An index for measuring the wear of teeth. Brit Dent J 156:435–438. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805394CrossRefPubMed

23.

van Dijken JW (1986) A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller, and hybrid composite resin fillings. A 6-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand 44:357–367. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358609094346CrossRefPubMed

24.

Karaman E, Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B (2012) Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results. J Adhes Dent 14:485–492. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a27794CrossRefPubMed

25.

May S, Cieplik F, Hiller KA, Buchalla W, Federlin M, Schmalz G (2017) Flowable composites for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: three-year results. Dent Mater 33:e136–e145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.12.009CrossRefPubMed

26.

Celik C, Ozgünaltay G, Attar N (2007) Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: two-year results. Oper Dent 32:313–321. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-93CrossRefPubMed

27.

Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P et al (2007) Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites. Dent Mater 23:749–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.013CrossRefPubMed

28.

Cieplik F, Scholz KJ, Tabenski I, May S, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Buchalla W, Federlin M (2017) Flowable composites for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: results after five years. Dent Mater 33:e428–e437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.012CrossRefPubMed

29.

Baroudi K, Saleh AM, Silikas N, Watts DC (2007) Shrinkage behaviour of flowable resin-composites related to conversion and filler-fraction. J Dent 35:651–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.05.001CrossRefPubMed

30.

Atai M, Watts DC, Atai Z (2005) Shrinkage strain-rates of dental resin-monomer and composite systems. Biomaterials 26:5015–5020CrossRef

31.

Ballal NV (2008) Microleakage of composite resin restorations. Aust Dent J 53:369–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00084CrossRefPubMed

32.

3M ESPE (2017) Technical product file. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1363018O/3m-filtek-supreme-ultra-universal-restorative-tpp-na.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2018

33.

3M ESPE (2017) Technical product file. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/976300O/filtek-bulk-fill-flowable-restorative-technical-product-profile.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2018

34.

Szesz A, Parreiras S, Martini E, Reis A, Loguercio A (2017) Effect of flowable composites on the clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 65:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.007CrossRefPubMed

35.

Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez IV, Fuentes S, Reis A, Muñoz MA (2017) Effect of dentin roughness on the adhesive performance in non-carious cervical lesions: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. J Dent 69:60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.011CrossRefPubMed

36.

Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A et al (2010) Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater 26:1176–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.190CrossRefPubMed

37.

Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigão J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43:1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005CrossRefPubMed

38.

Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, van Ende A, van Meerbeek B, de Munck J (2012) Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 40:475–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012CrossRefPubMed

39.

Suzuki T, Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A, Endo H, Erickson RL, Latta MA, Miyazaki M (2016) Influence of etching mode on enamel bond durability of universal adhesive systems. Oper Dent 41:520–530. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-347-LCrossRefPubMed

40.

Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, de Munck J, van Meerbeek B (2004) Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 83:454–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300604CrossRefPubMed

41.

Perdigão J, Muñoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez IV, Staichak R, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2014) Immediate adhesive properties to dentin and enamel of a universal adhesive associated with a hydrophobic resin coat. Oper Dent 39:489–499. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-203-LRCrossRefPubMed

42.

Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA (2009) The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater 25:1459–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.002CrossRefPubMed

43.

Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, Osaka A, Meerbeek BV (2012) Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 91:376–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512437375CrossRefPubMed

44.

Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y, Snauwaert J et al (2000) Evidence of chemical bonding at biomaterial-hard tissue interface. J Dent Res 79:709–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345000790020301CrossRefPubMed

45.

Litonjua LA, Cabanilla LL, Abbott LJ (2012) Plaque formation and marginal gingivitis associated with restorative materials. Compend Contin Educ Dent 33:e6–e10PubMed

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.

Yu H, Wegehaupt FJ, Wiegand A, Roos M, Attin T, Buchalla W (2009) Erosion and abrasion of tooth-colored restorative materials and human enamel. J Dent 37:913–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.07.006CrossRefPubMed

48.

Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F et al (2018) The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 68:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007CrossRefPubMed

Titel: One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions
verfasst von: Gabriela D. Canali
Sergio A. Ignácio
Rodrigo N. Rached
Evelise M. Souza
Publikationsdatum: 12.06.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2509-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

19.04.2024 | Vorhofflimmern | Nachrichten

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

Newsletter

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

PEKK-made indirect temporary crowns and bridges: a clinical pilot study

The evaluation of MTA and Biodentine as a pulpotomy materials for carious exposures in primary teeth

Influence of pH on osteoclasts treated with zoledronate and alendronate

Topical pimecrolimus versus betamethasone for oral lichen planus: a randomized clinical trial

Long-term follow-up of inactive occlusal caries lesions: 4-5-year results

Effects of two disinfection/sterilization methods for dentin specimens on dentin permeability

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

Newsletter