The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate clinical performance of flowable composite in carious and noncarious lesions. An electronic search was conducted using specific databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS) through March 2017. Clinical trials for restoration of carious and noncarious lesions were included with no date restrictions; follow-up was 6 months at least and dental restorations were evaluated using the United States Public Health Service criteria. The systematic search generated 908 papers, of which 35 papers were included for full-text review. Inclusion criteria were met by eight papers, six papers were for noncarious lesions and two papers were for restoration of carious lesions. The results of this review have shown no statistical or clinical difference between flowable and conventional composites for all tested outcomes in both carious and noncarious lesions. Both materials have shown clinically acceptable scores for all criteria, with no evidence of clinically unacceptable scores except in retention, with a retention rate of 83% in both materials after 36 months. Flowable composites had clinical efficacy after 3 years of service similar to that of conventional composite in both carious and noncarious lesions, these results are based on low quality of evidence. Based on the available literature and the best available evidence, flowable composites can be used in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions and minimally invasive occlusal cavities.

Background:Self-adhering flowable composite (SAFC) minimized the time-consuming application procedures encountered with the traditional adhesive systems and restorative materials. Self-adhering composite combines the merits of both adhesive and restorative material technologies (8th generation) in a single product, bringing new horizons, and ambitions to restorative procedures.Aim:The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of SAFC compared to conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities.Materials and Methods:In a split-mouth design, after cavity preparation, 18 patients with conservative Class I cavities received randomly two pairs of restorations, either Vertise™ flow or Filtek™ Z350 XT Flowable combined with Scotchbond™ Universal Etchant and Single Bond Universal, all materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months by two calibrated assessors using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria measuring (retention, postoperative hypersensitivity, color match, marginal adaptation, and marginal discoloration).Statistical Analysis:Chi-square test was used to compare between flowable composite materials after different follow-up periods, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to explore changes over follow-up periods. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: At baseline and 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference between both materials for all tested outcomes.Conclusions:SAFC has shown clinical performance similar to conventional flowable composite after 6 months of clinical service.

No abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the techniques of matricing used by Egyptian dentists, and evaluate the influence of these techniques on the reproduction of optimum proximal contacts for posterior proximal resin composite restorations. Material and methods: An online questionnaire was developed and sent to 785 dentists via e-mail and social media platforms. The survey asked the participants about the following: the highest academic degree achieved and their experience, techniques of matricing used, brands of matricing systems used, assessment of proximal contact points, their evaluation of the contact points they reproduced, and their assessment of the restorations’ emergence profiles. Results: A total of 415 dentists participated in the study (response rate 52.8%). 308 dentists (74%) preferred using the sectional matrix system, while 107 dentists (26%) preferred using the circumferential matrix system. One hundred twenty-six dentists (31%) reported that the circumferential matrix systems reproduced optimum contacts, 105 dentists (25%) reported tight contacts and 184 dentists (44%) reported open contacts. However, for the sectional matrix systems, the optimum contacts were reported by 279 dentists (67%) tight contacts by 109 dentists (26%) and open contacts by 27 dentists (7%). There was a statistically significant difference between the sectional matrix systems and the circumferential matrix systems regarding the tightness of the proximal contact points (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Egyptian dentists preferred using the sectional matrix systems. The survey indicated that optimum contact points were highly associated with the sectional matrix systems, while poor (open and tight) contacts were highly associated with the circumferential matrix systems.

No abstract