Dataset Information

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill composite resin and a nano-hybrid-filled composite resin in 6-12-year-old children in a split-mouth design.

Materials and methods

This randomized, split-mouth, and double-blind study was conducted on 89 patients aged 6-12 years with caries on bilateral mandibular first molars. In a split-mouth design, restorations of mandibular permanent molars were completed with nano-hybrid organically modified ceramic (ORMOCER)-based bulk-fill composite resin Admira Fusion x-tra (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) and nano-hybrid composite Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). Futurabond U single dose (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) was used with selective enamel etching. The clinical success of the restorations was evaluated using USPHS and FDI criteria at 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up controls.

Results

In the 2-year follow-up, all restorations were clinically acceptable. Grandio was significantly worse than Admira Fusion x-tra in terms of surface luster and superficial change (p < 0.05). Surface staining and color match scores increased in Admira Fusion x-tra compared with Grandio significantly (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Although both materials showed acceptable clinical performance over 2 years, a significant difference was observed between the surface luster, surface staining, marginal adaptation, and staining of the nano-hybrid composite placed with the incremental technique and the bulk-fill ORMOCER-based composite resin.

Clinical relevance

As an alternative to nano-hybrid composite resins, using bulk-fill restorative materials, which can be indicated in the proper case, may contribute to shortening treatment procedures and increasing patient and physician comfort, leading to clinical success.

SUBMITTER: Cagırır Dindaroglu F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10927878 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study.

Çağırır Dindaroğlu Funda F Yılmaz Ece E

Clinical oral investigations 20240311 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of this study was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill composite resin and a nano-hybrid-filled composite resin in 6-12-year-old children in a split-mouth design.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This randomized, split-mouth, and double-blind study was conducted on 89 patients aged 6-12 years with caries on bilateral mandibular first molars. In a split-mouth design, restorations of mandibular permanent molars were completed with nano-hybrid organically ...[more]

PMID: 38467942

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite recent advances in restorative dentistry adhesive restorations may cause postoperative sensitivity which leads to restoration failure.AimThis study aimed to compare and evaluate the incremental and bulk fill resin Composite postoperative sensitivity in class II posterior restorations bonded with two adhesive systems (self-etch and etch-and-rinse).MethodsSixty patients were randomly selected, their age range from twenty-five to forty years old, divided into two groups according to the packing technique of resin composite material; incremental Tetric Evoceram and Tetric Evoceram bulk-fill resin composite. Thirty patients (n = 30) for incremental Tetric Evoceram resin composite restorations and according to the adhesive systems used they were equally divided (n = 15 teeth).Thirty patients (n = 30) for Tetric Evoceram bulk-fill resin composite restorations and according to the adhesive systems used (etch and rinse or self-etch), they were equally divided (n = 15 teeth). Post-operative pain assessed at 24 hours, 1 week and 1 month using the Visual Analog Scale Score (VAS). Each patient was instructed to put a mark on the VAS line at home to point out the intensity of pain at each assessment period. The problem of measuring the pain that pain tolerance of individuals may be different from the others. This may be due to different reasons, and it is not always because of a problem in the restoration.ResultsAfter 1 day, 1 week as well as 1 month, no statistically significant disagreement between the two resin composite types using self-etch adhesive strategy and total-etch adhesive strategy. Also, when the two adhesive systems were compared using Bulk Fill resin composite and incremental Nano resin composite no statistically significant disagreement between the two adhesive systems after 1 day, 1 week as well as 1 month.ConclusionThe post-operative hypersensitivity is related to many factors as the procedure of cavity preparation, adhesive approach, and type of resin composite used and placement technique of the resin composite.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the impact of the duration of light curing unit (LCU) usage and the use of infection control barriers on the hardness of Bulk Fill composite resin after curing. The hypotheses were that extended usage of the LCU would not reduces its output power and resin hardness, and that the presence of polyethylene film barriers exacerbates the reduction in resin hardness.MethodsBased on the absence or presence of polyethylene film (PE) and the number of layers used, a 3M LED curing light (EliparTM DeepCure-S; 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was divided into three groups: PE0, PE1, and PE3. The curing light was used 30 times daily for 20 s per exposure, at frequencies of 0, 6, and 12 months. Maximum output power tests were conducted for each group of curing lights. Custom-made plastic modules were used to stack Bulk Fill composite resin (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative; 3M ESPE) to a thickness of 4 mm. Each group of curing lights was used to cure the modules in a direct contact manner for 20 s. Vickers hardness measurements were taken at the top and bottom surfaces of the resin specimens using a digital microhardness tester. A one-way or two-way ANOVA analyzed the power of LCUs, Vickers hardness of Bulk Fill composite resin, and hardness decrease percentage across groups. Pairwise comparisons used the Tukey test (α = 0.05).ResultsAs the duration of usage increased, both the power of the curing light and the hardness of the resin significantly decreased. Significant differences were observed in power and resin hardness among the PE0, PE1, and PE3 groups. When the duration of usage was 6 months or less, only multi-layered PE films led to a significant increase in the percentage decrease of hardness of cured resin from top to bottom. However, at 12 months, both single-layer and multi-layered PE films resulted in a significant increase in the percentage decrease of hardness of cured resin from top to bottom.ConclusionThe output power of the light curing unit decreases with prolonged usage, thereby failing to meet the curing requirements of Bulk Fill composite resin. The use of single-layer PE as an infection control barrier is recommended.

Project description:BackgroundClinical studies are being conducted in less strict conditions in order to establish an adequate scientific basis for decision making. The aim of this pragmatic randomized clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of single and multiple-surfaces restorations performed following the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) premises compared with Conventional Treatment (CT) using bulk fill composite restorations in primary and permanent teeth.Methods/designA total of 1,214 5-to-13 year-old children with at least one single or multiple-surface dentin caries lesion in primary or permanent molars will be selected in public schools of Barueri-SP, Brazil. The participants will be randomly assigned into 2 groups: CT (caries removal with bur and restoration performed with Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive system associated with Filtek Bulk Fill - 3 M/ESPE) and ART (Caries removal with hand instruments and restoration with high viscosity glass ionomer cement Ketac Molar Easy Mix - 3 M/ESPE). Ten untrained dentists will perform the treatment in in dental offices located at public schools. The restorations will be evaluated after 6, 12 and 24 months by an independent trained and calibrated examiner. The restoration and tooth survival, the cost-effectiveness analysis between the two groups and the operators' preferences regarding the techniques will be also evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test will be applied for the restoration and tooth survival. All the average event rates in the two groups will be modelled and compared with a Cox proportional hazard shared frailty model since there is an operator-cluster effect. The significance level for all analyses will be 5 %.DiscussionOur hypothesis is that despite similar expected effectiveness between ART using high viscosity GIC and conventional treatment using bulk fill composite resin when treating single or multiple-surface in posterior primary and permanent teeth, ART will present superior cost-effectiveness. The results of this trial will support decision-making by clinicians and policy makers.Trial registrationNCT02568917 . Registered on May 10th 2015.

Dataset Information

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Publications

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets