Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT: Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a self-adhering flowable resin composite compared to a conventional flowable resin composite used with an etch&rinse adhesive system in minimally invasive Class I cavities. Materials and Methods:Twenty-five patients received at least one pair of Class I restorations (n=65). After class I cavities had been prepared, they were randomly restored either with a self-adhering flowable resin composite (VertiseFlow/Kerr-VR) [Group-1 (n=33)], or with a flowable resin composite (Luxaflow/DMG-LX) in combination with an etch&rinse adhesive (Teco/DMG) [Group-2 (n=32)] according to the manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 5 years according to the FDI criteria by two evaluators. A statistical analysis was carried out using the Pearson Chi-Square test and the Cochran Q-test followed by the Mc Nemar's test (p=0.05). Results:After 5 years a total of 47 restorations were evaluated with a recall rate of 68%. At 4-year, 3 (11.5%) VR and 2 LX (7.6%) restorations exhibited a cumulative retention loss. Seventeen (73.9%) VR and 14 LX (58.3%) restorations exhibited clinically acceptable (2) scores for marginal adaptation. At 5-year evaluations VR and LX showed similar results regarding all evaluated criteria (p > 0.05). The cumulative retention loss rates of VR and LX were 15.3% and 7.6%, respectively. None of the restorations demonstrated a recurrence of caries and post operative sensitivity. Both materials showed significant changes at 4 and 5 years regarding marginal staining when compared to baseline (p<0.001). Furthermore, significant changes were observed for VR and LX at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years for marginal adaptation according to baseline (p<0.001). Conclusion:The use of both materials for the restoration of Class-I cavities demonstrated clinically acceptable performance at the end of 5-year. The self-adhering flowable composite exhibited a clinical performance similar to the conventional flowable applied with an etch&rinse adhesive.

SUBMITTER: Oz FD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7233123 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Oz Fatma Dilsad FD Ergin Esra E Cakir Filiz Yalcin FY Gurgan Sevil S

Acta stomatologica Croatica 20200301 1

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a self-adhering flowable resin composite compared to a conventional flowable resin composite used with an etch&rinse adhesive system in minimally invasive Class I cavities.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Twenty-five patients received at least one pair of Class I restorations (n=65). After class I cavities had been prepared, they were randomly restored either with a self-adhering flowable resin composite ( ...[more]

PMID: 32523153

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The newly introduced self-adhering flowable resin-composites decrease the required time for application by incorporation of an acidic adhesive monomer, thus reducing the number of steps, but its bonding is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interfacial microscopic examination and chemical analysis at the resin-dentin interface of a self-adhering flowable resin composite (Vertise™Flow Self-Adhering Flowable Composite, Kerr Dental, USA) versus a total-etch (Te-Econom Plus) resin composite, using an etching agent (Eco-Etch gel) and bonding agent (Single Bond Universal). Methods: Sixteen freshly extracted sound human posterior teeth were used. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups: 8 specimens per type of composite. Standard-shaped class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface. One group was restored by Te-Econom Plus resin composite by total-etch technique using Eco-Etch gel, which was applied to dentine for 15 seconds, followed by rinsing, drying and bonding agent application (Single Bond Universal). The other group restored directly with self-adhering resin composite (Vertise-Flow) without application of etch or bond. Curing was done for 20 seconds using a light emitting diode light curing unit. Evaluation of the resin-dentin interface was done microscopically by examination of marginal gap distance in μm using scanning electron microscope (SEM), and chemical analysis of silver particles was observed using SEM with energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry after 24 hours of specimen storage in ammoniacal silver nitrate. Results: Regarding marginal gap distance (µm) and silver atomic % mean values, teeth restored with self-adhering resin composite (Vertise-Flow) showed significantly higher mean values than the multi-step etch and rinse resin composite group (5.2 vs 0; 12.2 vs 8.2, respectively). Conclusions: Resin-dentin bonding using total-etch resin composite technique was more effective than self-adhering flowable resin composite (Vertise-Flow) regarding marginal gap formation and penetration of silver particles. Further studies for bond strength could be performed.

Project description:The aim of the present clinically controlled two-year study was to investigate the influence of laser-based cavity preparation on the long-term performance of Class V resin-composite fillings. Class V non-carious lesions (n = 75) were randomly assigned to two test and one control group. Cavities in both test groups were prepared using an Er,Cr:YSGG laser (Waterlase MD, Biolase, Irvine, California, USA). The device was operated at 3 W (150 mJ, 30 J/cm2), 50% water, 60% air, 30 Hz in H mode. Subsequently, laser-prepared tooth surfaces in test group I (n = 21) were additionally conditioned by acid etching (etch-and-rinse). Laser-prepared cavities of test group II (n = 21) received no additional acid conditioning. After application of an adhesive, all cavities were restored using the resin-composite Venus®. For cavities in the control group (n = 33) conventional diamond burs were used for preparation which was followed by an etch-and-rinse step, too. The fillings were evaluated immediately (baseline) and after 6, 12 and 24 months of wear according to the C-criteria of the USPHS-compatible CPM-index. The results showed that after 24 month of wear, laser-preparation was associated with fillings of high clinical acceptability. Compared to conventional bur-based treatment, laser-based cavity preparation resulted in fillings with high marginal integrity and superior marginal ledge configurations (p = 0.003). Furthermore, laser-preparation combined with additional acid-conditioning (test group I) resulted in fillings with the best marginal integrity and the lowest number in marginal discoloration, especially at the enamel-composite margins (p = 0.044). In addition, total loss of fillings was also less frequently observed in both laser groups as compared to the control. The results clearly demonstrate that laser-based cavity preparation will benefit the clinical long-time performance of Class V resin-composite fillings. Furthermore, additional acid-conditioning after laser preparation is of advantage.

Project description:Purpose. This study tested the null hypothesis that different classes of direct restorative dental materials: silorane-based resin, low-shrinkage and conventional (non-flowable and flowable) resin-based composite (RBC) do not differ from each other with regard to polymerization shrinkage, depth of cure or microhardness. Methods. 140 RBC samples were fabricated and tested by one calibrated operator. Polymerization shrinkage was measured using a gas pycnometer both before and immediately after curing with 36 J/cm(2) light energy density. Depth of cure was determined, using a penetrometer and the Knoop microhardness was tested from the top surface to a depth of 5 mm. Results. Considering polymerization shrinkage, the authors found significant differences (p < 0.05) between different materials: non-flowable RBCs showed lower values compared to flowable RBCs, with the silorane-based resin presenting the smallest shrinkage. The low shrinkage flowable composite performed similarly to non-flowable with significant statistical differences compared to the two other flowable RBCs. Regarding to depth of cure, low-shrinkage flowable RBC, were most effective compared to other groups. Microhardness was generally higher for the non-flowable vs. flowable RBCs (p < 0.05). However, the values for low-shrinkage flowable did not differ significantly from those of non-flowable, but were significantly higher than those of the other flowable RBCs. Clinical Significance. RBCs have undergone many modifications as they have evolved and represent the most relevant restorative materials in today's dental practice. This study of low-shrinkage RBCs, conventional RBCs (non-flowable and flowable) and silorane-based composite-by in vitro evaluation of volumetric shrinkage, depth of cure and microhardness-reveals that although filler content is an important determinant of polymerization shrinkage, it is not the only variable that affects properties of materials that were tested in this study.

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.

Dataset Information

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.

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets