Clinical follow-up at 18 months of two Bulk Fill occlusal composite resins. A double-blind randomized clinical study.

Patricio Vildósola Grez; Sara Rodriguez Dueri; Jenifer Carrión; Constanza Saez; Jorge Nakouzi Momares

doi:10.17126/joralres.2022.061

Patricio Vildósola Grez Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Andres Bello. Santiago, Chile. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0649-4334
Sara Rodriguez Dueri Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Andres Bello. Santiago, Chile. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6258-9840
Jenifer Carrión Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Andres Bello. Santiago, Chile. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8241-9849
Constanza Saez Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Andres Bello. Santiago, Chile. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6191-5138
Jorge Nakouzi Momares Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Andres Bello. Santiago, Chile. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0332-1550

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2022.061

Abstract

Objetive: To compare the clinical behavior of two types of Bulk Fill composite resins and a nanohybrid resin at 18 months in occlusal restorations.
Material and Methods: Three occlusal restorations were performed in each one of the 55 participants. They were randomly distributed into three groups, TN: Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, FK: Filtek Bulk-Fill, and Z350: Filtek Z350XT. Adhesive techniques and restorative procedures were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions for each restorative material used. In TN and FK an increment of 4mm was applied, and in Z350 increments of ≤2mm depth were applied. Two calibrated operators evaluated the restorations at baseline and at 18 months using the FDI World Dental Federations system (1: excellent, 2: good, 3: satisfactory, 4: unsatisfactory, 5: poor) for clinical marginal staining (MS) properties, fracture-retention (FR), superficial texture (ST), marginal integrity (MI), postoperative sensitivity (PS) and caries (C). Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon were used to compare the 3 groups at 18 months (5% significance).
Results: 38 patients with a total of 114 restorations were assessed, being evaluated with excellent clinical behavior; MI, 78.9% in Z350, 89.51% in TN and 81.6% in FK; ST 73.5% in Z350, 86.8% in TN, and 84.2% in FK; MS 84.2% in Z350, 84.2% in TN, and 91.2% in FK; PS 100% in Z350 and 97.3% in TN and FK; in C and FR, 100% in the 3 groups. There were no significant differences between the three groups (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The three resins studied presented a good clinical performance at 18 months without showing significant differences in the clinical properties evaluated.

References

[1]. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent. 2014;42(4):377-83.

[2]. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stresses in composites for two different curing modes. Dent Mater. 1993;9(1):2-5.

[3]. Kaisarly D, Meierhofer D, El Gezawi M, Rösch P, Kunzelmann KH. Effects of flowable liners on the shrinkage vectors of bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(8):4927-40.

[4]. Sabbagh J, McConnell RJ, McConnell MC. Posterior composites: Update on cavities and filling techniques. J Dent. 2017;57:86-90.

[5]. Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(8):1991-2000.

[6]. Cidreira Boaro LC, Pereira Lopes D, de Souza ASC, Lie Nakano E, Ayala Perez MD, Pfeifer CS, et al. Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin -a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2019;35(10):e249-e64.

[7]. Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(1):221-33.

[8]. Arbildo-Vega HI, Lapinska B, Panda S, Lamas-Lara C, Khan AS, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Clinical Effectiveness of Bulk-Fill and Conventional Resin Composite Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers (Basel). 2020;12(8).

[9]. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2011;9(8):672-7.

[10]. 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(4):349-66. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8. Epub 2010 Jul 14. PMID: 20628774.

[11]. 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(4):303-9.

[12]. Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations. Oper Dent. 2017;42(5):478-85.

[13]. Vildósola P, Nakouzi J, Rodriguez S, Reyes A, Reyes J & Conejeros C. Six month follow-up of two Bulk-fill composites in non-carious cervical lesions: Double blind randomized clinical trial. J Oral Res. 2019;8(3):9.

[14]. Hardan L, Sidawi L, Akhundov M, Bourgi R, Ghaleb M, Dabbagh S, et al. One-Year Clinical Performance of the Fast-Modelling Bulk Technique and Composite-Up Layering Technique in Class I Cavities. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(11).

[15]. Perdigão J. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion - not there yet. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020;56(1):190-207.

[16]. Dennison JB, Sarrett DC. Prediction and diagnosis of clinical outcomes affecting restoration margins. J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39(4):301-18.

[17]. Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2021.

[18]. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From Buonocore's Pioneering Acid-Etch Technique to Self-Adhering Restoratives. A Status Perspective of Rapidly Advancing Dental Adhesive Technology. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(1):7-34.

[19]. Dreweck FDS, Burey A, de Oliveira Dreweck M, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(5):2495-510.

[20]. Suneelkumar C, Harshala P, Madhusudhana K, Lavanya A, Subha A, Swapna S. Clinical performance of class I cavities restored with bulk fill composite at a 1-year follow-up using the FDI criteria: a randomized clinical trial. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(2):e24.

[21]. Durão MA, Andrade AKM, Santos MDCM, Montes MAJR, Monteiro GQM. Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale Criteria: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur J Dent. 2021;15(2):179-92.