Microhybrid versus nanofill composite in combination with a three step etch and rinse adhesive in occlusal cavities: five year results

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of occlusal carious restorations using nanofill and microhybrid composites, in combination with 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesives, in patients who were going to commence orthodontic treatment.Materials and MethodsA total of 118 restorations for occlusal caries were conducted prior to orthodontic treatment. Occlusal restorations were performed both with Filtek Supreme XT (3M ESPE) and Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) before beginning orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic bands. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year recalls.ResultsNone of the microhybrid (Filtek Z250) and nanofill (Filtek Supreme XT) composite restorations was clinically unacceptable with respect to color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, recurrent caries, marginal adaptation, or surface texture. A 100% success rate was recorded for both composite materials. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the clinical evaluation criteria between Filtek Z250 and Filtek Supreme XT restorations for each evaluation period.ConclusionsThe composite restorations showed promising clinical results relating to color matching, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, recurrent caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture at the end of the 5-year evaluation period.

A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives

“…However, recent studies, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, have not corroborated these claims [ 5 , 6 ]. Moreover, similar clinical behaviour was observed for nanocomposites and microhybrid composites [ 2 ].…”

“…These materials have evolved rapidly since they were first introduced, resulting in more durable and aesthetic restorations [ 1 ]. This led to a paradigm shift in dentistry, away from amalgam towards the more tooth-structure preserving composites [ 2 ]. However, there are various setbacks that are composite-related, including wear, microleakage, discoloration, postoperative sensitivity and polymerization shrinkage [ 3 , 4 ].…”

A Comparative Evaluation of Stress Resistance Between Nano-hybrid Composite and Ormocer Restorations on Posterior Teeth - in vitro Study

“…Resin composite materials allow the adoption of minimal intervention approaches that conserve and preserve sound tooth structure, being biocompatible, esthetic and having many other useful mechanical properties. Hence restorative dentistry is making a gradual transition towards resin composites, rather than dental amalgam [4].…”

Effect of Tooth Brushing on Wear of Microhybrid Composites In vitro experiment

“…The wear rate was the highest in the first six months after which the growth trend was maintained [7]. In clinical studies where the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were used, after the same period of time, 96.6% of microhybrid (Filtek Z250) and 95% of nanofilled (Filtek Supreme XT) composite restorations remained smooth [30], while in an other study the roughness of microhybrid (Filtek Z250) restorations were the second best before nanofilled (Filtek Z350) and after nanohybrid (Esthet-X), respectively [31].…”