A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.

Hacer Balkaya,Soley Arslan,Kanşad Pala

doi:10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678

Hacer Balkaya, Soley Arslan + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678

Copy DOI

Abstract

Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving.Objectives:The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations.Methodology:In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.Results:At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05).Conclusion:Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.

Highlights

In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF)
Negative results such as poor marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, white line formation around the restoration, tubercle fractures, microleakage, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in composite resin restorations are generally based on polymerization shrinkage stress;4-6 various attempts have been made to achieve low polymerization shrinkage in restorative materials
We aimed to evaluate the clinical performances of a micro-hybrid composite resin, a bulk-fill composite resin and a highly viscous glass ionomer cements (HVGIC) in Class II cavities

Summary

Introduction

The advances in adhesive techniques, allied to increased focus on the aesthetic qualities of dental restorations and adoption of a minimally invasive dentistry approach, have great influence on the treatment plan in the posterior and anterior regions.1,2In recent years, posterior composites have been generally preferred for back tooth restorations by direct methods because of their advantages such as single visit and short application time, aesthetics, ability to protect dental tissues during preparation, and being cheaper when compared to indirect methods. Negative results such as poor marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, white line formation around the restoration, tubercle fractures, microleakage, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in composite resin restorations are generally based on polymerization shrinkage stress; various attempts have been made to achieve low polymerization shrinkage in restorative materials. In addition, timesaving applications for the implementation of posterior restorations are in high demand. Posterior composites have been generally preferred for back tooth restorations by direct methods because of their advantages such as single visit and short application time, aesthetics, ability to protect dental tissues during preparation, and being cheaper when compared to indirect methods.. Posterior composites have been generally preferred for back tooth restorations by direct methods because of their advantages such as single visit and short application time, aesthetics, ability to protect dental tissues during preparation, and being cheaper when compared to indirect methods.3 Negative results such as poor marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, white line formation around the restoration, tubercle fractures, microleakage, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in composite resin restorations are generally based on polymerization shrinkage stress; various attempts have been made to achieve low polymerization shrinkage in restorative materials.. The main reasons why thick layering cannot be achieved in conventional resin composites are the limited depth of cure and the increase in polymerization shrinkage at the interface between tooth and restorative material. it has been reported that bulk-fill composites do not adversely affect the polymerization shrinkage, the adaptation of the cavities and the degree of conversion during application, and exhibit less polymerization shrinkage than conventional composite resins.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion