Six month follow-up of two Bulk-fill composites in non-carious cervical lesions: Double blind randomized clinical trial.
AbstractObjective: To assess the six-month clinical outcome of restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) with two composite resins: Bulk-Fill and nanohybrid resin. Materials and methods: Fifty-one patients, with three NCCLs each, were randomly allocated into three restoration groups: Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TB); Filtek Bulk-Fill (FB); y Filtek Z350XT (Z350). Adhesive techniques and restorative procedures were performed according to the manufacturers’ instructions for the different materials. A 4mm increment was applied in TB and FB, and increments of ≤2mm depth were applied in Z350. Restorations were assessed by two calibrated examiners at baseline and at six months according to the FDI World Dental Federation guidelines (1: excellent, 2: acceptable, 3: sufficient, 4: unsatisfactory, 5: unacceptable) in Marginal Staining (MS), Fracture-Retention (FR), Marginal Adaptation (MA), Postoperative Sensitivity (S) and Caries (C). Wilcoxon test was used for the comparison between baseline and 6 months, and Kruskal-Wallis for the comparison of the three groups at six months (95% significance). Results: Forty-six patients with a total of 138 restorations attended a check-up at six months and were evaluated with excellent clinical outcome. In MS, 91.2% for Z350 and 97.8% for FB and TB; in FR, 97.8% for Z350 and 100% for FB and TB; in MA, 95.6% for Z350, 97.8% for FB and 100% for TN; in S, 95.6% for all three groups; and 100% for C. No statistically significant differences were found between the three groups nor in the comparison between the baseline and 6 months (p>0.05) Conclusion: No significant differences are observed between the three groups of resins in the parameters of MS, MA, S, FR and C regarding clinical outcome at six months.
2. Lai ZY, Zhi QH, Zhou Y, Lin HC. Prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions and associated risk indicators in middle-aged and elderly populations in southern china. Chin J Dent Res. 2015;18:41-50.
3. Grippo JO, Simring M, Coleman TA. Abfraction, abrasion, biocorrosion, and the enigma of noncarious cervical lesions: A 20-year perspective. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24:10-23.
4. Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G, Blunck U, Paris S, Hsu LY, Tu YK. Directly placed restorative materials: Review and network meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2016;95:613-22.
5. Canali GD, Ignácio SA, Rached RN, Souza EM. One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable verus. Regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(2):889-897
6. Ferracane JL. Buonocore lecture. Placing dental composites--a stressful experience. Oper Dent.2008;33:247-57.
7. Abbas G, Fleming GJ, Harrington E, Shortall AC, Burke FJ. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with a packable composite cured in bulk or in increments. J Dent. 2003;31:437-44.
8. Sabbagh J, McConnell RJ, McConnell MC. Posterior composites: Update on cavities and filling techniques. J Dent . 2017;57:86-90.
9. Moszner N, Fischer UK, Ganster B, Liska R, Rheinberger V. Benzoyl germanium derivatives as novel visible light photoinitiators for dental materials. Dent Mater.2008;24:901-7.
10. Goracci C, Cadenaro M, Fontanive L, Giangrosso G, Juloski J, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Polymerization efficiency and flexural strength of low-stress restorative composites. Dent Mater 2014;30:688-94.
11. Correia AMO, Tribst JPM, Matos FS, Platt JA, Caneppele TMF, Borges ALS. Polymerization shrinkage stresses in different restorative techniques for non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 2018;76:68-74
12. Borges AL, Borges AB, Xavier TA, Bottino MC, Platt JA. Impact of quantity of resin, c-factor, and geometry on resin composite polymerization shrinkage stress in class v restorations. Oper Dent 2014;39:144-51.
13. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-fill composites: A review of the current literature. J Adhes Dent. 2017;19:95-109.
14. Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent. 2017;8(2).
15. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: A randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation. Eur J Oral Sci . 2017;125:303-9.
16. Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E. Thirty-six-month clinical comparison of bulk fill and nanofill composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2017;42:478-85.
17. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD. Fdi world dental federation: Clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig.2010;14:349-66.
18. Engelhardt F, Hahnel S, Preis V, Rosentritt M. Comparison of flowable bulk-fill and flowable resin-based composites: an in vitro analysis. Clin Oral Invest.2016;20:2123-30
19. Blackham JT, Vandewalle KS, Lien W. Properties of hybrid resin composite systems containing prepolymerized filler particles. Oper Dent.2009;34:697-702
20. Kubo S, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Challenges to the clinical placement and evaluation of adhesively-bonded, cervical composite restorations. Dent Mater.2013;29:10-27.
21. Goldstein RE, Lamba S, Lawson NC, Beck P, Oster RA, Burgess JO. Microleakage around class v composite restorations after ultrasonic scaling and sonic toothbrushing around their margin. J Esthet Restor Dent.2017;29:41-8.
22. Machado AC, Soares CJ, Reis BR, Bicalho AA, Raposo L, Soares PV. Stress-strain analysis of premolars with non-carious cervical lesions: Influence of restorative material, loading direction and mechanical fatigue. Oper Dent.2017;42:253-65.
23. Reis A, de Geus JL, Wambier L, Schroeder M, Loguercio AD. Compliance of randomized clinical trials in noncarious cervical lesions with the consort statement: A systematic review of methodology. Oper Dent.2018;43:E129-51.
24. Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigão J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent.2015;43:1083-92.
25. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, Osaka A, Meerbeek BV.Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res.2012;91:376-81.
26. Mahn E, Rousson V, Heintze S. Meta-analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations. J Adhes Dent.2015;17:391-403.
27. Schroeder M, Reis A, Luque-Martinez I, Loguercio AD, Masterson D, Maia LC. Effect of enamel bevel on retention of cervical composite resin restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent.2015;43:777-88.
28. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, Loguercio A. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent.2016;53:1-11.
29. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigão J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent.2013;25:55-69.
30. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F, Gritsch K, Maurin JC, et al. The use of fdi criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review. J Dent.2018;68:1-9.
The copyright of all the articles published in the J Oral Res. belongs to the Universidad de Concepción, Chile. All information about theJ Oral Res. is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 and must be cited correctly.