Six month follow-up of two Bulk-fill composites in non-carious cervical lesions: Double blind randomized clinical trial.
Abstract
Objective: 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.
References
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.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2023.