22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics

Rodolpho, Paulo Antônio da Rosa; Donassollo, Tiago Aurélio; Cenci, Maximiliano Sérgio; Loguércio, Alessandro Dourado; Moraes, Rafael R.; Bronkhorst, Ewald M.; Opdam, N.J.M.; Demarco, Flávio Fernando

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.06.001

Cited by 278 publications

(236 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

205

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…33,34 Nonetheless, only a few publications have used the FDI criteria since then. 20,[36][37][38] Most clinical studies reporting clinical evaluation of NCCL restorations still use the USPHS criteria. 23,[25][26][27][28][29][30][39][40][41][42] One study, 36 published as an abstract, concluded that the FDI criteria were more sensitive for identifying differences in the restorations than the USPHS criteria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

Perdigão

Kose

Mena-Serrano

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

243

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At 18 months, the new multimode adhesive, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, fulfilled the American Dental Association criteria required for full approval. Its clinical behavior is reliable when used in noncarious cervical lesions and may not depend on the bonding strategy. SUMMARYPurpose: To evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of a multimode adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, SU, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria.Materials and Methods: Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm, etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd, etch-andrinse + dry dentin; Set, selective enamel etching; and SE, self-etch. The composite resin, Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE), was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and at 18 months, using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) , 2014, 39-2, 113-127 bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS criteria and 38%, 40%, 36%, and 44% for groups ERm, ERd, Set, and SE, respectively, when the FDI criteria were applied (p.0.05). However, when semiquantitative scores (or SQUACE) for marginal adaptation were used, SE resulted in a significantly greater number of restorations, with more than 30% of the total length of the interface showing marginal discrepancy (28%) in comparison with the other groups (8%, 6%, and 8%, respectively, for ERm, ERd, and Set).Conclusions: The clinical retention of the multimode adhesive at 18 months does not depend on the bonding strategy. The only differences between strategies were found for the parameter marginal adaptation, for which the FDI criteria were more sensitive than the USPHS criteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

Perdigão

Kose

Mena-Serrano

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

243

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This situation was augmented by continuous development and improvement in the physical and mechanical properties of visible light-cured resin composite materials [1][2][3][4] . However, investigations on the clinical performance have reported fracture of resin composite restorations as the most prominent cause of failure [5][6][7][8][9] . Therefore, many studies have focused on evaluating the mechanical properties of resin composites and comparing them with the other properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of the correlation between the different mechanical properties of resin composites

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the different mechanical properties with the filler fraction of various resin composites. Mechanical properties of eighteen different resin composites were investigated in this study; flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), fracture toughness (FT), compressive strength (CS), diametral tensile strength (DTS), Barcol hardness (BH), Vickers hardness (HV), and Knoop hardness (HK). The mean values of mechanical properties and the filler fractions (V f ) obtained from the literature and the manufacturer were analyzed using Pearson's correlation test at p<0.01. The relationships were compared with the data retrieved from previous studies. Strong correlations between V f and BH/HV/HK and V f and FM were evident in the results of the present study and these results were supported by the retrieved data from previous studies. The other relationships between mechanical properties, such as that between FS and FM and between CS and HV were not significant.

show abstract

“…While the size of the filler particles lie around 8-30 μm in hybrid composites and 0.7-3.6 μm in microhybrid composites, RBCs with nanofillers exhibit filler sizes ranging from 5 to 100 nm [1,2]. Yet, nanofilled RBCs still exhibit clinical problems such as secondary caries and fractures in the long term [3][4][5]. A great conservative alternative to manage deficient RBC restorations is the repair.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of non-aged and aged resin-based composites (RBC) (nanohybrid and nanofilled) after two surface conditioning methods, repaired using the composite of the same kind or a microhybrid composite. MATERIALS AND METH-ODS: Nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram-TE) and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme-FS) RBC blocks (5 × 5 × 6 mm) (N = 128) were fabricated and randomly divided into two groups: (a) no ageing (control group) and (b) ageing (5.000 thermocycling, 5-55°C). RBC surfaces were polished by up to 1,200-grit silicone carbide papers and conditioned with either (a) air abrasion with 30-m SiO(2) particles (CoJet Sand) for 4 s + silane coupling agent (ESPE-Sil) + adhesive resin (VisioBond) (n = 16) or (b) adhesive application only (Multilink A+B for TE; Adper ScotchBond 1XT for FS) (n = 16). In half of the groups, repair resin of the same kind with the RBC and, in the other half, a different kind of composite (microhybrid, Quadrant Anterior Shine-AS) with its corresponding adhesive (Quadrant UniBond) was used. The specimens were submitted to MTBS test (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Degree of conversion (DC) of non-aged and aged resin composites (TE, FS) (n = 3 per group) was measured by micro-Raman analyses. RESULTS: RBC type (p = 0.001) and ageing affected the MTBS results significantly (p = 0.001). Surface conditioning type did not show significant difference (p = 0.726), but less number of pre-test failures was experienced with the CoJet system compared to adhesive resin application only. Repair strength on aged TE showed significantly less (p < 0.05) MTBS than for FS. FS repaired with the same kind of RBC and adhesive resin presented the highest cohesive failures (43 %). DC was higher for TE (71 %) than for FS (58 %) before ageing. CONCLUSION: On the aged RBCs, less favourable repair strength could be expected especially for nanohybrid composite. For repair actions, RBC surface conditioning could be accomplished with either adhesive resin application only or with CoJet system, providing that the latter resulted in less pre-test failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians could condition the resin surface prior to repair or relayering with either CoJet system or adhesive resin application only, depending on the availability of the system. Abstract Objectives This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of non-aged and aged resin-based composites (RBC) (nanohybrid and nanofilled) after two surface conditioning methods, repaired using the composite of the same kind or a microhybrid composite. Materials and methods Nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram-TE) and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme-FS) RBC blocks (5× 5×6 mm) (N0128) were fabricated and randomly divided into two groups: (a) no ageing (control group) and (b) ageing (5.000 thermocycling, 5-55°C). RBC surfaces were polished by up to 1,200-grit silicone carbide papers and conditioned with either (a) air abrasion with 30-μm SiO 2 particles (CoJet Sand) for 4 s ...

show abstract

22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics

Cited by 278 publications

References 29 publications

A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

Investigation of the correlation between the different mechanical properties of resin composites

Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About