scholarly journals One-Year Clinical Aging of Low Stress Bulk-Fill Flowable Composite in Class II Restorations: A Case Report and Literature Review

Coatings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 504
Author(s):  
Louis Hardan ◽  
Monika Lukomska-Szymanska ◽  
Maciej Zarow ◽  
Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez ◽  
Rim Bourgi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Morphological Characteristics ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Adhesive Interface ◽  
Composite Interface ◽  
Oral Environment ◽  
One Year

Bulk-fill flowable composites provide functional and aesthetic restorations while eliminating incremental composite layering and saving time. The degradation of the adhesive interface with subsequent gap formation is a concern when adhesively luted restorations are placed. Moreover, the number of adhesive interface failures increases when they are exposed to long-term water storage. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the morphological characteristics of the tooth-composite interface in class II cavities restored with a low stress bulk-fill flowable composite after aging in an oral environment. We describe a case of a patient with class II cavities in four premolars restored with a low stress bulk-fill flowable composite Surefil SDR (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany). The occlusal part was restored with nano-hybrid resin composite Ceram X Mono (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH). After one year of clinical function, the teeth were extracted and examined in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). It can be concluded that the application of bulk-fill covered with conventional composite seems to provide the homogeneous and stable bond to tooth structure after one year of aging in an oral environment. However, some defects within the dentin-resin composite interface were observed.

scholarly journals Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Compomer and Composite used for Restoring Primary Teeth

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-49
Author(s):  
Omar A. El Meligy ◽  
Amani A. Al Tuwirqi
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Patients Âgés ◽  
Group I ◽  
One Year

This study assessed different restorative materials in primary teeth over a one-year period. Sixty carious primary molars were selected from 30 patients; ages 5-10 years. Class I and II cavities were divided into four groups: Group I: 15 Class I cavities were restored with a compomer, Group II: 15 Class I cavities were restored with a resin composite, Group III: 15 Class II cavities were restored with a compomer and Group IV: 15 Class II cavities were restored with a resin composite. Each child had two teeth restored, one with compomer and the other with composite resin as control. Direct clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed by one examiner after 24 hours, 6- and 12-months. Indirect clinical evaluations were performed using a Scanning Electron Microscope after 24 hours and 12-months periodically. Clinical and radiographic evaluations revealed no significant differences between the compomer and resin composite at 6- and 12-months. Indirect clinical evaluation showed good marginal interfaces between the restorations and the tooth structure throughout the evaluation periods. Both materials presented significant clinical and radiographic performances in Class I and II restorations of primary molars after one year.

Cervical Margin Integrity of Class II Resin Composite Restorations in Laser- and Bur-Prepared Cavities Using Three Different Adhesive Systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
PA Oskoee ◽  
S Kimyai ◽  
ME Ebrahimi ◽  
S Rikhtegaran ◽  
F Pournaghi-Azar
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Gap Width

SUMMARY One of the challenges in durability of posterior tooth-colored restorative materials is polymerization shrinkage, which results in gap formation between the restoration and tooth structure. The aim of the present study was to investigate marginal adaptation of Class II composite restorations using a self-etching and two etch-and-rinse adhesive systems in cavities prepared either with bur or Er,Cr:YSGG laser. A total of 45 extracted sound human premolars were selected. In each tooth, mesial and distal Class II cavities were prepared either by a diamond bur or by Er,Cr:YSGG laser with the margins 1 mm apical to the cemento-enamel junction. Then the teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 15 each, according to the type of the adhesive system used (Single Bond, Single Bond 2, and Adper Easy One adhesive systems). Subsequent to restoring the teeth, the specimens were subjected to thermal cycling between 5 ± 2°C and 55 ± 2°C for 500 cycles and were then cut longitudinally into two halves using a diamond disk. Marginal adaptation was evaluated using a stereomicroscope, and the values for gap widths were obtained in micrometers. Data were analyzed using two-factor analysis of variance and post hoc tests. There were statistically significant differences in mean marginal gap widths between the adhesive type and preparation groups (p<0.05). The interfacial gap width in bur-prepared cavities was significantly less than that in laser-prepared cavities, and the lowest gap width was observed in Adper Easy One regardless of the type of the preparation.

Marginal Gap Formation in Approximal “Bulk Fill” Resin Composite Restorations After Artificial Ageing

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Peutzfeldt ◽  
S Mühlebach ◽  
A Lussi ◽  
S Flury
Keyword(s):  
Tap Water ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Artificial Ageing ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Marginal Gap ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the marginal gap formation of a packable “regular” resin composite (Filtek Supreme XTE [3M ESPE]) and two flowable “bulk fill” resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill [3M ESPE] and SDR [DENTSPLY DeTrey]) along the approximal margins of Class II restorations. In each of 39 extracted human molars (n=13 per resin composite), mesial and distal Class II cavities were prepared, placing the gingival margins below the cemento-enamel junction. The cavities were restored with the adhesive system OptiBond FL (Kerr) and one of the three resin composites. After restoration, each molar was cut in half in the oro-vestibular direction between the two restorations, resulting in two specimens per molar. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken and “baseline” replicas were produced. The specimens were then divided into two groups: At the beginning of each month over the course of six months' tap water storage (37°C), one specimen per molar was subjected to mechanical toothbrushing, whereas the other was subjected to thermocycling. After artificial ageing, “final” replicas were produced. Baseline and final replicas were examined under the scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the SEM micrographs were used to determine the percentage of marginal gap formation in enamel or dentin. Paramarginal gaps were registered. The percentages of marginal gap formation were statistically analyzed with a nonparametric analysis of variance followed by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and all p-values were corrected with the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple testing (significance level: α=0.05). Paramarginal gaps were analyzed descriptively. In enamel, significantly lower marginal gap formation was found for Filtek Supreme XTE compared to Filtek Bulk Fill (p=0.0052) and SDR (p=0.0289), with no significant difference between Filtek Bulk Fill and SDR (p=0.4072). In dentin, significantly lower marginal gap formation was found for SDR compared to Filtek Supreme XTE (p<0.0001) and Filtek Bulk Fill (p=0.0015), with no significant difference between Filtek Supreme XTE and Filtek Bulk Fill (p=0.4919). Marginal gap formation in dentin was significantly lower than in enamel (p<0.0001). The percentage of restorations with paramarginal gaps varied between 0% and 85%, and for all three resin composites the percentages were markedly higher after artificial ageing. The results from this study suggest that in terms of marginal gap formation in enamel, packable resin composites may be superior to flowable “bulk fill” resin composites, while in dentin some flowable “bulk fill” resin composites may be superior to packable ones.

Gap Formation between Different Cavity Walls and Resin Composite Systems on Primary and Permanent Teeth

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-69
Author(s):  
Ozlem Tulunoglu ◽  
Asli Evren Ulker
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Sem Analysis ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Dentin Bonding ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Composite Systems ◽  
Dentin Bonding Agents ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of five self-etching and etch-rinse dentin-bonding agents in achieving a gap-free adaptation between the restorative material and the dentin in primary and permanent teeth. Methods and Materials Gaps located at the restoration dentin interface were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results There were more gaps on the corner of the cavities, but no significant difference was detected between different cavity walls (p>0,05). Statistical results of the SEM analysis revealed fewer gaps in the restorations made with self-etching dentin bonding agents than etch-rinse agents at the restoration-dentin interface in both primary and permanent teeth. Conclusion Self-etching bonding systems were preferable in primary and permanent teeth according to the results of this study. However, further studies should be conducted to determine a favorable strategy to eliminate the gaps on the corners of cavities and maintain a gap-free adaptation between resin composite and tooth structure. Citation Tulunoglu O, Ulker AE. Gap Formation between Different Cavity Walls and Resin Composite Systems on Primary and Permanent Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:060-069.

scholarly journals Gambaran Radiografis Restorasi Kelas II Resin Komposit Packable, Flowable dan Pasta Regular

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
Rosalina Tjandrawinata ◽  
Lie Hanna Davita Wibowo
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Cavity Wall ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
One Way Anova ◽  
Patient Class ◽  
Group 1

Polymerization shrinkage can make a gap formation between dental cavity wall and composite resin restorative materials. In radiographic film, the gap appears radiolucent, looks like secondary caries, or bonding material.The purpose of this study was to determineradiographic difference of class II restoration usingpackable, flowable, and regular paste compositeresin. The samples were12 free caries maxillary premolarwhich were extracted from orthodontic patient. Class II cavities were prepared as follows buco-palatal distance  3 mm, mesiodistal 2 mm, depth 3mm. Samples were divided into four groups. Group 1 were restored with regular pastecomposite resin, group 2 with  packable compositeresin, group 3with flowable and regular pastecomposite resin, while group 4 were restored with flowable and packable composite resin. After 24 hours, the sampleswere exposed by dental x-ray.The radiolucent areabetween dental cavity wall and resin composite restoration were 0.21-0.36mm. Data wereanalyzed using one way ANOVA, followed by LSD test showed that the distance formed in group 1, 3 and 4 were not different significantly, butdifferentsignificantlywith group 2. It can be concluded that there are radiographic difference of class II restoration using packable, flowable and regular pastecomposite resin.

Effect of Pre-heated Composites and Flowable Liners on Class II Gingival Margin Gap Formation

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 663-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Sabatini ◽  
U. Blunck ◽  
G. Denehy ◽  
C. Munoz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Gingival Margin ◽  
Reduced Viscosity ◽  
Composite Interface

Clinical Relevance The use of reduced viscosity composites, such as flowable and pre-heated resins, as the first increment in Class II preparations, did not improve gingival margin adaptation nor did it minimize gap formation at the dentin-composite interface.

scholarly journals A Restorative Approach for Class II Resin Composite Restorations: A Two-Year Follow-up

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
MJMC Santos
Keyword(s):  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Rotary Instruments ◽  
Polishing Procedures

SUMMARY This clinical report describes a restorative technique used to replace two Class II resin composite restorations on the upper premolars. A sectional matrix band was used in conjunction with an elastic ring (Composi-Tight) to obtain tight proximal contact. A nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra) was incrementally applied using oblique layers to reduce the C-factor, each layer being no more than 2 mm thick, and then light cured for 20 seconds with a light-emitting diode lamp (EliparFreeLight 2 LED Curing Light) with a power density of 660 mW/cm2. A centripetal technique was used to restore the lost tooth structure from the periphery toward the center of the cavity in order to achieve a better contour and anatomy with less excess, thereby minimizing the use of rotary instruments during the finishing procedures. Finally, the resin composite restorations were finished and polished, and a surface sealer (Perma Seal) was applied to fill small gaps and defects that may have been present on the surfaces and margins of the restorations after the finishing and polishing procedures.

scholarly journals Micro-computed tomography evaluation of microleakage of Class II composite restorations: An in vitro study

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (03) ◽  
pp. 369-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelo Zavattini ◽  
Manuele Mancini ◽  
James Higginson ◽  
Federico Foschi ◽  
Guido Pasquantonio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Micro Computed Tomography ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Agno3 Solution ◽  
Etch And Rinse

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the microleakage attained with three resin-based material used to restore deep Class II cavities. A null hypothesis was chosen: there is no difference in microleakage among the tested materials. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 Class II cavities were prepared in freshly extracted molars with the proximal mesial and distal margins located, respectively, 1.5 mm apically and 1.5 mm coronally to the cementum-enamel junction. Restorations were completed using a three-step enamel-dentin adhesive system “Etch and Rinse,” margins were relocated using a micro-hybrid, preheated, or flowable composite and restorations were then completed using a conventional composite. All samples were coated with nail varnish with the exception of an area along the margins and apex was sealed using epoxide cement and then thermocycled (30-s dwell time, 5°C/55°C, 1000 cycles). A 50% ammoniac AgNO3 solution was used as tracer according to Tay's protocol. The microleakage analysis was performed using a microtomography system Sky-scan 1072 (SKYSCAN, Kartuizersweg 3B 2550, Konitch, Belgium). Results: The mean microleakage of all the tested materials showed greater leakage in the cementum margins; flowable composite exhibit greater leakage among the groups. Significant differences (P < 5%) within groups in both enamel and dentin margins were present. None of the tested materials eliminated marginal microleakage. Preheated composite showed significantly lesser microleakage. Conclusion: Tested materials showed statistical differences in microleakage; thus, the null hypothesis has been rejected. Within the limitations of the present experimental procedure, it can be concluded that flowable resin composite should be avoided at the dentin/cementum margin.

Bulk-Fill Resin Composites: Polymerization Contraction, Depth of Cure, and Gap Formation

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
AR Benetti ◽  
C Havndrup-Pedersen ◽  
D Honoré ◽  
MK Pedersen ◽  
U Pallesen
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Depth Of Cure ◽  
Low Viscosity ◽  
Dental Cavities ◽  
Fill Materials

SUMMARY The bulk-filling of deep, wide dental cavities is faster and easier than traditional incremental restoration. However, the extent of cure at the bottom of the restoration should be carefully examined in combination with the polymerization contraction and gap formation that occur during the restorative procedure. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare the depth of cure, polymerization contraction, and gap formation in bulk-fill resin composites with those of a conventional resin composite. To achieve this, the depth of cure was assessed in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization 4049 standard, and the polymerization contraction was determined using the bonded-disc method. The gap formation was measured at the dentin margin of Class II cavities. Five bulk-fill resin composites were investigated: two high-viscosity (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, SonicFill) and three low-viscosity (x-tra base, Venus Bulk Fill, SDR) materials. Compared with the conventional resin composite, the high-viscosity bulk-fill materials exhibited only a small increase (but significant for Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) in depth of cure and polymerization contraction, whereas the low-viscosity bulk-fill materials produced a significantly larger depth of cure and polymerization contraction. Although most of the bulk-fill materials exhibited a gap formation similar to that of the conventional resin composite, two of the low-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites, x-tra base and Venus Bulk Fill, produced larger gaps.

Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial of Class II Restorations Using Low-shrinkage Flowable Resin Composite

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
SMB Frascino ◽  
TC Fagundes ◽  
UAE Silva ◽  
V Rahal ◽  
ACS Barboza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Cold Sensitivity ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Different Types ◽  
One Year ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Equality Test

SUMMARYPurpose:The aim of this prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate postoperative sensitivity, clinical performance, and interproximal contacts after using different restorative systems.Methods and Materials:Fifty-three subjects each received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional resin composite (PA: Peak Universal+Amelogen Plus, Ultradent), low-shrinkage flowable and nanoparticulate resin composites (ABF: Adper Single Bond 2+Filtek Bulk Fill Flow+Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE), and low-shrinkage flowable and microhybrid resin composites (XST: XP Bond+SDR+TPH3, Dentsply). Postoperative sensitivity was assessed at 24 hours, seven days, 90 days, and six months. The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated at baseline, six months, and one year. Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate postoperative sensitivity and interproximal contacts. The equality test of two proportions and logistic regression analysis were used to assess the clinical performance.Results:No statistically significant differences were observed among groups for postoperative sensitivity. The highest spontaneous sensitivity was reported at 24 hours. ABF was the only group that did not present a reduction in cold sensitivity. Color, marginal discoloration, and superficial staining showed differences among the groups. XST did not show superficial staining after one year. No differences were observed among groups in relation to interproximal contacts. XST resulted in the loss of interproximal contact after one year.Conclusions:Different types of restorative systems do not influence postoperative sensitivity; however, ABF maintained cold sensitivity over time. Marginal discoloration occurred for all groups but occurred earliest for PA. XST presented a reduction of interproximal contact after one year of evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document