With an increasing use of posterior composite resin restorations, the incidence of post-operative sensitivity has become an everyday clinical problem. The aim of this paper is to identify the possible causes of post-operative sensitivity and explore how it can be avoided and treated. CPD/Clinical Relevance: This paper addresses the different causes responsible for post-operative sensitivity following composite placement. Also the management of this situation is discussed.

The objectives of this case report were to treat a severe loss of the vertical dimension of occlusion with indirect composite and to evaluate the durability of the restorations. A 55-year-old male complains from severe wear of teeth, leading to a change in normal occlusal plane. Two major treatment modalities were proposed to this patient; a conventional invasive crown placement with root canal treatments or a minimally invasive approach relying on adhesion. The latter was adopted and used to treat this patient. This paper describes a step-by-step approach of the different treatment phases starting with teeth preparation, then provisional prostheses, and ending with the placement of indirect anterior veneers and posterior onlays, all made with laboratory resin composite. Satisfactory clinical results were observed over the 4-year follow-up, with minimum failures limited to one partial fracture of inlay treated with direct adhesive repair.

Aim To compare the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with a universal adhesive, one-step and two-step self-etch adhesives in class I and II posterior cavities. Materials and methods In this in vivo study, 46 volunteers presenting with at least three carious lesions were included. Each participant received the three restorative systems: universal adhesive/nanofilled composite (Scotchbond Universal/Filtek Z350 XT: SBU/FZXT), one-step self-etch adhesive/microhybrid composite (G-aenial bond/G-aenial Posterior: GB/GP) and the two-step self-etch adhesive/nanohybrid composite (OptiBond XTR/Herculite Ultra: OBX/HU). The adhesives were all placed in self-etch mode. In total, 138 restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6,12 and 36 months using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Data were analysed using Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, Friedman and Wilcoxon non-parametric tests ( p < .05). Ninety-one restorations were evaluated at 36 months. Results Seven restorations, three SBU/FZXT, three GB/GP and one OBX/HU failed during this study. The reasons for failure were marginal fracture and secondary caries. SBU/FZXT restorations showed significant marginal deterioration in all parameters. Overall success rates were: 93.5% (SBU/FZXT), 96.6% (GB/GP) and 96.8% (OBX/HU). Conclusions After three years, the three restorative systems have comparable clinical effectiveness and success rates, except for the marginal integrity, that was suboptimal for both the SBU/FZXT and GB/GP restorations in comparison to the OBX/HU restorations.

No abstract