Performance Of Posterior Composite Restorations Research Articles

Four-year Outcomes of Class III and IV Anterior Restorations Based on a Subset of German Health Insurance Data.

Numerous studies report on the outcome performance of posterior composite restorations. However, there are fewer studies providing data for anterior restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome performance of anterior permanent restorations by analyzing a large dataset from a German national health insurance company. Routine claims data from a major German national health insurance company were assessed. Fee codes were used for tracing restoration careers on a day-count basis. The treatment was defined as a placed restoration (Class III and IV) on a mesial or distal tooth surface, irrespective of the extension. The restorations were placed between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013. Statistical analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to determine cumulative 4-year survival rates. The primary outcome was re-intervention on the same surface. Secondary outcomes were crowning and extraction which were analyzed separately. A total of 2,417,791 restorations involving mesial surfaces and a number of 2,409,031 restorations involving distal surfaces were observed. At 4 years, the cumulative survival rates concerning the primary outcome 're-intervention' were 79.9% for mesial and 80.9% for distal restorations. The respective annual failure rates (AFR) were 5.5% and 5.2%. Four-year survival rates for the secondary outcome 'crown' were 93.8% for mesial and 94.1% for distal anterior restorations. The respective AFRs were 1.6% and 1.5%. For the secondary outcome 'extraction,' the respective rates were 94.6% for mesial and 93.9% for distal restorations. The respective AFRs were 1.4% and 1.6%. The performance of permanent anterior restorations which were placed in general dental practices in Germany can be rated as acceptable.

3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials

To evaluate the impact of using ion-releasing liners on the 3-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after selective caries excavation with polymer burs. 20 patients were enrolled in this trial. Each patient had two deep carious lesions, one on each side of the mouth. After selective caries removal using polymer bur (PolyBur P1, Komet, Brasseler GmbH Co. KG, Lemgo, Germany), cavities were lined with bioactive ionic resin composite (Activa Bioactive Base/Liner, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). All cavities were then restored with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA). All the tested materials were placed according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Clinical evaluation was accomplished using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria at baseline and after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. Data were analyzed using Mann–whitney U and Friedman tests (p < 0.05). The success rates were 100% for all resin composite restorations either lined with ion-releasing resin composite or resin-modified glass ionomer liner. Mann–whitney U test revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between both ion-releasing lining material groups for all criteria during the follow-up periods (p > 0.05). Resin composite restorations showed acceptable clinical performance over 3 years either lined with bioactive ionic or resin-modified glass ionomer liners after selective caries excavation preserving pulp vitality. After the 3-year follow-up period, Activa Bioactive and Riva Light Cure liners were clinically effective and they exhibited with the overlying composite restorations successful clinical performance.Trial registration number: NCT05470959. Date of registration: 22/7/2022. Retrospectively registered.

Clinical Evaluation of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth - Results of 2.5 Year Follow-up.

Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of posterior composite restorations reinforced by bulk base of short-fiber composite (everX Posterior, GC Corporation).Methods:Thirty-six short fiber-reinforced composite restorations were placed in premolar and molar teeth of 33 patients. Eight of the teeth were vital and 28 were non-vital. Average follow up time of the restorations was 30.6 months (2.5 years), ranging from 16.2 to 51.3 months (1.3 - 4.3 years).Results:One restoration failed during the follow-up period due to secondary caries, at time point 39.5 months. Three fillings had minor fractures during the follow-up. The overall survival rate of the restorations was 97.2% and success rate (no maintenance needed) was 88.9%, respectively.Conclusion:Posterior composite restorations with a bulk base of short-fiber composite showed good clinical performance in the short term evaluation.

Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies in posterior restorations-18-month results.

To evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of four adhesive strategies in posterior composite restorations placed in private practice. Upon approval by an institutional review board, 144 restorations were inserted in 45 subjects (average age = 32.6) to treat caries lesions or to replace existing restorations in vital molars and premolars. The adhesives OptiBond FL (three-step etch-and-rinse), OptiBond SOLO Plus (two-step etch-and-rinse), OptiBond XTR (two-step self-etch), and OptiBond All-in One (one-step self-etch) were applied as per manufacturer's (Kerr Co.) instructions followed by a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE) under rubber dam isolation. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 18 months using United States Public Health Service (USPHS)-modified criteria and high-resolution digital photographs. Statistical analyses included the McNemar and the Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests (p < 0.05). A total of 137 restorations were evaluated after 18 months. The number of alfa ratings did not change significantly from baseline to 18 months for any of the adhesion strategies. When the 18-month evaluation criteria were pooled by pairs of adhesives, none of the adhesives resulted in a significantly different number of alfa ratings for any of the criteria compared with the other adhesives. Bonding strategy did not influence the clinical performance of posterior composite restorations under the clinical conditions used in this study. When used in ideal clinical conditions, the composition of current dentin adhesives may be more clinically relevant than their adhesion strategy.

A randomized double-blind clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 1-year follow-up

Objective This randomized double-blind clinical trial compared the performance of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel, after 1-year follow-up. Material and Methods Thirteen volunteers requiring at least two posterior composite restorations were selected. Twenty-nine cavities were performed, comprising 14 without bevel (butt joint) and 15 with bevel preparation of the enamel cavosurface angle. All cavities were restored with simplified adhesive system (Adper Single Bond) and composite resin (Filtek P60). A halogen light curing unit was used through the study. Restorations were polished immediately. Analysis was carried out at baseline, after 6 months and after 1 year by a calibrated evaluator (Kappa), according to the FDI criteria. Data were statistically analyzed by Mann-Whitney test (p<0.05). Results Beveled and non-beveled cavities performed similarly after 1 year follow-up, regarding to fractures and retention, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, surface luster and anatomic form. However, for surface and marginal staining, beveled cavities showed significantly better performance (p<0.05) than butt joint restorations. Conclusions It was concluded that the restorations were acceptable after 1 year, but restorations placed in cavities with marginal beveling showed less marginal staining than those placed in non-beveled cavities.

Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial of Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Bevel: 6-Month Follow-up

This double-blind randomized clinical trial compared the performance of posterior composite restorations with and without bevel. Thirteen volunteers requiring at least two posterior Class II restorations were selected. Twenty-nine cavity preparations were performed, comprising 14 without bevel (butt joint) and 15 with marginal beveling. All cavities were restored with a simplified adhesive system (Adper Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) and composite resin (Filtek P60, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA). A halogen light-curing unit (XL 3000, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) was used throughout the study. Restorations were polished immediately. Analysis was carried out at baseline and after six months by a calibrated evaluator (kappa), according to FDI criteria. The results were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p<0.05). Beveled and nonbeveled restorations performed similarly after six months in relation to fractures and retention, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, surface luster, and anatomic form. However, for surface and marginal staining, beveled restorations showed significantly better performance than butt joint restorations (p<0.05). Restorations performed were acceptable after six months, but beveled restorations showed less marginal staining than nonbeveled restorations. Bevel used in posterior composite restorations decreased the surface and marginal staining, in six-month evaluations.

Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Composite Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the two year clinical performance of posterior composite restorations in endodontically treated premolars and molars using a hybrid composite (Filtek Z-250, 3M ESPE) and a total etch bonding system (Single Bond, 3M ESPE). Thirty-nine class II restorations in endodontically treated premolars (n=11) and molars (n=28) of 27 patients (14 female, 13 male, mean age 36.51) in 16 maxillar and 23 mandibular teeth were placed by one operator. Restorations were evaluated by two experienced investigators at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria that included retention, color match, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and surface texture. All restorations were able to be evaluated at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Paired samples t-test showed only marginal discoloration showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) at the end of 24 months, and no other significant differences were observed for the other variables examined over the duration of the study. None of the restored teeth showed periapical pathology at the end of 24 months. At two years, limited deterioration in marginal discoloration was detected. The clinical performance of posterior composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth using Filtek Z250 was found clinically acceptable after two years.

Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations

Posterior composite restorations have been in use for approximately 30 years. The early experiences with this treatment indicated there were more clinical challenges and higher failure rates than amalgam restorations. Since the early days of posterior composites, many improvements in materials, techniques, and instruments for placing these restorations have occurred. This paper reviews what is known regarding current clinical challenges with posterior composite restorations and reviews the primary method for collecting clinical performance data. This review categorizes the challenges as those related to the restorative materials, those related to the dentist, and those related to the patient. The clinical relevance of laboratory tests is discussed from the perspective of solving the remaining clinical challenges of current materials and of screening new materials. The clinical problems related to early composite materials are no longer serious clinical challenges. Clinical data indicate that secondary caries and restoration fracture are the most common clinical problems and merit further investigation. The effect of the dentist and patient on performance of posterior composite restorations is unclear and more clinical data from hypothesis-driven clinical trials are needed to understand these factors. Improvements in handling properties to ensure void-free placement and complete cure should be investigated to improve clinical outcomes. There is a general lack of data that correlates clinical performance with laboratory materials testing. A proposed list of materials tests that may predict performance in a variety of clinical factors is presented. Polymerization shrinkage and the problems that have been attributed to this property of composite are reviewed. There is a lack of evidence that indicates polymerization shrinkage is the primary cause of secondary caries. It is recommended that composite materials be developed with antibacterial properties as a way of reducing failures due to secondary caries. Post-operative sensitivity appears to be more related to the dentin adhesives' ability to seal open dentinal tubules rather than the effects of polymerization shrinkage on cuspal deflections and marginal adaptation.

Meta-analysis on long-term clinical performance of posterior composite restorations

Meta-analysis is a formalized method of combining results of different studies to provide conclusions about the effectiveness of a treatment modality. The aims of this study were to use meta-analysis to determine the clinical performance of posterior composite restorations using the assessment criteria of the USPHS guidelines by combining data from selected multiple studies and to estimate the overall survival rates of posterior composite restorations over time. A computer-aided search of the literature revealed 97 publications on clinical trials of posterior composites in the last 10 years. Following specific selection criteria, which included the year and language of publication, duration of study, class of cavities restored and type of resin composite material used and clinical characteristics assessed; 16 studies were found to be suitable for, and included in a meta-analysis. These involved eight different resin composite materials. Assessment criteria data were extracted from each selected study and tabulated on the basis of years of follow-up and materials. The criteria were coded as binary variables. Homogeneity amongst studies was assessed using Woolf's statistic prior to combining the data. Weighted average proportions and standard errors were determined for each of the assessment criteria. Using Kaplan-Meier estimates, survival analyses of individual assessment criteria (outcomes) for two posterior composite materials were conducted and the resultant survival curves for these outcomes for the two materials are presented. Considering the limited number of studies of variable length available for meta-analysis, the results indicate generally high clinical performance of the various posterior composites for the number of outcomes analysed.