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

Abstract

Objective This study was aimed to compare the 12-month clinical performance of two full-body bulk-fill resin composites Filtek bulk fill/3M ESPE (FBF) and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill/Ivoclar Vivadent (TBF) and a conventional microhybrid resin composite Filtek Z250/3M ESPE (Z250) using the modified the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Also, the agreement between the two evaluation criteria was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up. Materials and Methods A total of 138 class I and II restorations were placed in posterior teeth (split-mouth design) of 46 volunteers following manufacturer’s instructions and bonded with a self-etching bonding agent (Clear fill SE Bond/Kuraray). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up by three previously calibrated dentists (Cohen’s K = 0.84). Statistical Analysis Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test were used to evaluating the homogeneity of distribution of the clinical characteristics. Friedman’s test was applied to evaluate differences among the resin composites. The results obtained for the USPHS and FDI criteria at the different observation times were compared using the Wilcoxon test. A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted for all tests. Results After 12 months (recall rate, 78.3%, n = 36 patients), the overall success rate was 99.07% for both criteria. Only one failed restoration (0.93%) was detected for each system during follow-up in the TBF group. Conclusion The bulk-fill resin composites showed satisfactory clinical performance compared with conventional resin composite after 12 months. The percentage of the acceptable scores was significantly higher for the USPHS criteria, due to discrepancies in the score description for each criterion.

Adequacy of resin composites light curing: A survey on Current Awareness and Practice Among General Dentists in Saudi Arabia

“…The collected data that 69.2% of respondent GDP don't use bulk-ll composites while 30.8% of them use it is interesting since bulk-ll composites reduce time and effort of application and has been reported to be a satisfactory restorative. (21,22) Unavailability of bulk-ll composites at respective workplaces and lack adequate knowledge and awareness of participating dentists are probable explanations. 69.2% said they do not.…”

Bond strength of bulk-fill resin composites

“…Furthermore, systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials have revealed no differences in the performance of bulk-fill and conventional materials after 01 to 10 years of follow up 27,28 . Thus, it seems that bulk-fill resin composites seem to be a suitable alternative to conventional layered resin composites when used in a 4 -5mm single-increment (bulk-fill technique) 29 .…”

Propriedades da resina composta bulk fill: uma revisão da literatura

“…Dentre esses, pode-se observar que ambos os tipos de resina composta (convencional ou bulk fill) possuem comportamento biomecânico bastante similar, ou mais especificamente, o desempenho clínico é material dependente, seja ele qual o tipo de resina composta seja. Para tanto, estudos longitudinais em diferentes situações clínicas, como restaurações em dentes posteriores classe I (Al-Sheikh, 2019), classe II (Alkurdi & Abboud, 2016;Balkaya & Arslan, 2020;Arslan & Pala, 2019;Bayraktar et al, 2017;Guney & Yazici, 2019;Yazici et al, 2017), ou ambas as classes (Arhun;Celik;Yamanel, 2010;Berti et al, 2020;Durão et al, 2020;Heck et al, 2019;Chen & Hickel, 2010) e em lesões cervicais não cariosas (LCNC) (Canali et al, 2019;Correia et al, 2020;Vildósola et al, 2019) corroboram estes achados, assim como, revisões sistemáticas com meta-análises refutam estes achados e conclusões (Arbildo-Veja et al, 2020;Boaro et al, 2019;Kruly et al, 2018;Veloso et al, 2019).…”