Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations

Abstract

Clinical Relevance The clinical performance of both conventional and flowable giomer restorative materials was particularly good in Class I restorations after three years of service. SUMMARY This study evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional giomer restorative material after three years. Forty-four pairs of restorations (total n=88) were placed in Class I cavities with either a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or a conventional giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc) after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL-Bond II; Shofu Inc) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 3 years, 39 pairs of restorations were evaluated with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria, and digital color photographs of restorations were taken at each patient visit. The evaluation parameters were as follows: color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention, secondary caries formation, anatomic form, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. Evaluations were recorded as a clinically ideal situation (Alpha), a clinically acceptable situation (Bravo), or a clinically unacceptable situation (Charlie). Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar tests (α=0.05). None of the restorations showed retention loss, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or color change. The performance of Beautifil II in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and surface anatomic form was significantly lower at the 36-month follow-up than at baseline (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between the baseline and 36-month follow-up scores for the other criteria for Beautifil II (p>0.05). No differences were found between the baseline and the 36-month follow-up scores for any of the criteria for Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (p>0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p>0.05). The three-year clinical performance of both restorative materials (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 and Beautifil II) was very good and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated.

Five‐year clinical performance of two fluoride‐releasing giomer resin materials in occlusal restorations

“…This prospective study investigated and compared the five‐year clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional fluoride‐releasing nano‐hybrid giomer restorative material containing S‐PRG fillers, bonded with a two‐step, self‐etch adhesive during posterior class I restoration. The previous results of this current study had confirmed that both Beautifil II conventional giomer restorative and Beautifil Flow Plus F00 flowable giomer materials were clinically very good in Class I restorations after 3‐year clinical service 24 . Therefore, the null hypothesis tested was that there would be no difference in the clinical performance of the two giomer materials.…”

“…While second‐generation giomer restorative materials such as Beautifil II have shown clinically acceptable results for a duration of 36 months, 6,24,25 the existing literature is limited. Therefore, the results of the present study, which indicate that Class I restorations placed with Beautifil II and Beautifil Flow Plus F00 maintain good clinical characteristics after 5 years, contribute significantly to the existing literature.…”

“…The conventional form, Beautifil II (Shofu Inc.), is a nano‐hybrid composite that incorporates the properties of both composite resins and glass ionomers. It contains discrete nanofillers (10–20 nm), with a total filler content of 83.3 wt% (68.6 vol%), 20 making it clinically acceptable for all classes of restorations in the anterior and posterior regions 21–24 . A recent development has been the introduction of Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (Sofu Inc), a flowable giomer restorative material that acts as a base, liner, and restorative materials all in one.…”

Long-Term Assessment of Contemporary Ion-Releasing Restorative Dental Materials

“…The fluoride release depends on the material's water sorption after placement in the moist environment and is therefore significantly lower than in resin-modified glass-ionomers or compomers [10,19]. Their behavior is considered very similar to resin composite, and their clinical performance is satisfactory [21].…”

“…A compromise between satisfactory mechanical properties and the ion-releasing benefits is needed. While mechanical properties of resin composites [18,29,30], glass-ionomers [14,15], and giomers [19,21] are sufficiently explored, studies focused on alkasite materials are scarce and mainly investigate the powder-liquid hand-mixed Cention N [31][32][33][34]. Besides the work of Par and co-workers [4,22,24,25] that focused on ion-releasing properties of Cention, a PubMed search of articles including the capsulated version of Cention resulted in finding only three papers studying fluoride release [35], wear behavior [36], or biologic effects on pulp cells [37].…”