Effects of Different Application Techniques on Nanohybrid Composite Restorations Clinical Success

Abstract

Introduction:Dental composites have been used as a restorative material for a long time. However, they have their limitations.Aims:This study evaluated the effects of placement techniques on the clinical performance of class I composite resin restorations.Methods:A total of 40 patients with split-mouth design participated in this study. Each patient had two fillings according to the placement technique (either bulk or incremental packing) of the composite resin restorations. Group (A): was packed by Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill composite resin and Group (B): was incrementally packed with Tetric EvoCeram composite resin. Restorations of the teeth were evaluated on the same day, at one week, 3 months and 6 months to determine any signs of failure according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.Results:At different follow-up periods, the results showed no significant differences for retention, marginal integrity, surface stain, gingival bleeding, and secondary caries; however, there were significant differences in color match, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity.Conclusion:This study concluded that the nanohybrid resin composites demonstrated excellent clinical performance for 6 months follow up period.

Clinical Effectiveness of Bulk-Fill and Conventional Resin Composite Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…In all included studies [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], the number of patients ranged from 22 to 86, with a follow-up time of between 6 months and 10 years. The countries, where the studies were carried out were: Turkey [ 14 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 27 ], Brazil [ 22 , 23 , 25 ], Germany [ 21 , 26 ], Sweden [ 17 , 19 ], Denmark [ 19 ], and Saudi Arabia [ 24 ]. Ten studies [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 29 ] reported that the mean age of the patients was between 7.41 and 55.30 years.…”

“…The total number of treated patients and restored teeth was 764 and 1915, respectively. In 5 studies [ 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 26 ], class I and class II restorations were performed, 3 studies [ 24 , 27 , 28 ] performed class I restorations, 6 studies [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 23 , 29 ] performed class II restorations, and 2 studies [ 22 , 25 ] performed non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) restorations. Among the types of teeth restored, it was observed that the restorations were made in the permanent incisors, canines, premolars, and molars.…”

“…Six studies [ 14 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 26 , 27 ] reported that the etching and rinsing method was used and 12 studies [ 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 ] used the self-engraving method. The adhesives used in the studies were: Single Bond Universal Adhesive [ 15 , 27 , 29 ], Clearfil SE Bond [ 14 , 22 , 29 ], Xeno III [ 20 , 21 , 26 ], Xeno V [ 17 , 19 ], AdheSE Bond [ 16 , 29 ], OptiBond All-in-One [ 28 , 29 ], Adper Single Bond 2 [ 18 , 23 ], Syntac classic [ 21 , 26 ], XP Bond [ 23 ], Tetric N Bond Total-etch [ 24 ], Scotchbond Universal Adhesive [ 25 ], Excite F [ 18 ], Futurabond NR [ 20 ], and Peak Universal [ 23 ]. The composite resins used in the studies were inserted in the cavities with the following placement techniques: (1) the incremental method, involving Filtek Z550 [ 14 ], Charisma Smart Composite [ 15 ], Filtek Z350 XT [ 22 ], Amelogen Plus [ 23 ], Tetric EvoCeram [ 16 , ...…”

“…The adhesives used in the studies were: Single Bond Universal Adhesive [ 15 , 27 , 29 ], Clearfil SE Bond [ 14 , 22 , 29 ], Xeno III [ 20 , 21 , 26 ], Xeno V [ 17 , 19 ], AdheSE Bond [ 16 , 29 ], OptiBond All-in-One [ 28 , 29 ], Adper Single Bond 2 [ 18 , 23 ], Syntac classic [ 21 , 26 ], XP Bond [ 23 ], Tetric N Bond Total-etch [ 24 ], Scotchbond Universal Adhesive [ 25 ], Excite F [ 18 ], Futurabond NR [ 20 ], and Peak Universal [ 23 ]. The composite resins used in the studies were inserted in the cavities with the following placement techniques: (1) the incremental method, involving Filtek Z550 [ 14 ], Charisma Smart Composite [ 15 ], Filtek Z350 XT [ 22 ], Amelogen Plus [ 23 ], Tetric EvoCeram [ 16 , 24 ], Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal [ 25 ], Tetric Ceram [ 21 , 26 ], Filtek Z250 [ 27 ], Herculite Ultra [ 28 ], Clearfil Photo Posterior [ 29 ], Ceram X mono [ 17 , 19 ], Filtek Ultimate [ 18 ], Grandio [ 20 ], and QuiXfil [ 20 ]; (2) the bulk method, involving X-tra Fill Bulk [ 14 ], Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative [ 15 , …”

“…Only a few studies [ 18 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 28 ] mentioned using a rubber dam for moisture control during the clinical restorative procedure. Other included studies used cotton rolls and suction for isolation.…”