Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-12-2015 | Original Article

A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment

Authors: Mustafa Demirci, Safa Tuncer, Evren Öztaş, Neslihan Tekçe, Ömer Uysal

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 9/2015

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the medium-term clinical performance of direct composite build-ups for diastema closures and teeth recontouring using a nano and a nanohybrid composite in combination with three- or two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives following treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances.

Materials and methods

A total of 30 patients (mean age, 19.5 years) received 147 direct composite additions for teeth recontouring and diastema closures. A nano and a nanohybrid composite (Filtek Supreme XT and CeramX Duo) were bonded to tooth structure by using a three-step (Scotchbond Multipurpose) or a two-step (XP Bond) etch and rinse adhesive. Ten out of 147 composite build-ups (composite addition) constituted tooth recontouring cases, and the remaining 137 constituted diastema closure cases. The restorations were evaluated by two experienced, calibrated examiners according to modified Ryge criteria at the following time intervals: baseline, 1, 2, 3, and 4 years.

Results

The 4-year survival rates were 92.8 % for Filtek Supreme XT/Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus and 93 % for CeramX Duo/XP Bond. Only ten restorations failed (5 Filtek Supreme XT and 5 CeramX Duo). Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the two composite–adhesive combinations with respect to color match, marginal discoloration, wear/loss of anatomical form, caries formation, marginal adaptation, and surface texture on comparing the five time periods (baseline, 1, 2, 3, and 4 years)

Conclusions

The 4-year survival rates in the present study were favorable. The restorations exhibited excellent scores with regard to color match, marginal adaptation, surface texture, marginal discoloration, wear/loss of anatomical form, and caries formation, after 4 years of clinical evaluation.

Clinical relevance

An alternative clinical approach for correcting discrepancies in tooth size and form, such as performing direct composite restorations following fixed orthodontic treatment, may be an excellent and minimally invasive treatment.

Wolff D, Kraus T, Schach C, Pritsch M, Mente J, Staehle HJ, Ding P (2010) Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a clinical evaluation of survival and quality parameters. J Dent 38:1001–1009CrossRefPubMed

Staehle HJ (1999) Minimally invasive restorative treatment. J Adhes Dent 1:267–284PubMed

Frese C, Schiller P, Staehle HJ, Wolff D (2013) Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a 5-year follow-up. J Dent 41:979–985CrossRefPubMed

Buonocore MG (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34:849–853CrossRefPubMed

Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1997) The 5-year clinical performance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. II. Marginal qualities. Clin Oral Investig 1:19–26CrossRefPubMed

Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1997) The 5-year clinical performance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. I. Esthetic qualities. Clin Oral Investig 1:12–18CrossRefPubMed

Heymann HO, Hershey HG (1985) Use of composite resin for restorative and orthodontic correction of anterior interdental spacing. J Prosthet Dent 53:766–771CrossRefPubMed

Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Quirynen M (1998) The influence of direct composite additions for the correction of tooth form and/or position on periodontal health. A retrospective study. J Periodontol 69:422–427CrossRefPubMed

Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21:864–881CrossRefPubMed

10.

Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235PubMed

11.

de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA (2011) 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent 39:8–15CrossRefPubMed

12.

van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2011) Four-year clinical evaluation of class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent 39:16–25CrossRefPubMed

13.

Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P (2006) Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material. Clin Oral Investig 10:181–186CrossRefPubMed

14.

Filtek™ Supreme XT Universal Restorative (2005) Technical product profile, USA

15.

Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M (2012) Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites. J Dent 40:766–775CrossRefPubMed

16.

Heymann HO (2002) Additional conservative esthetic procedures. In: Sturdevant CM (ed) The art and science of operative dentistry, 4th edn. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, pp 591–650

17.

Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358PubMed

18.

Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP (1995) A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc 126:1245–1253CrossRefPubMed

19.

Demirci M, Uysal O (2006) Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract AP) in class I cavities: 3-year results. Am J Dent 19:376–381PubMed

20.

Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:215–232CrossRefPubMed

21.

Roulet JF (1997) Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam—results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Investig 1:40–46CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fields HW Jr (1981) Orthodontic restorative treatment for relative mandibular anterior excess tooth-size problems. Am J Orthod 79:176–183CrossRefPubMed

23.

Müssig E, Lux CJ, Staehle HJ, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Komposch G (2004) Applications for direct composite restorations in orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop 65:164–179CrossRefPubMed

24.

Wise RJ, Nevins M (1988) Anterior tooth site analysis (Bolton Index): how to determine anterior diastema closure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 8:8–23PubMed

25.

Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM (2012) Craig’s restorative dental materials, 13th edn. Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia

26.

Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN (2003) An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1382–1390CrossRefPubMed

27.

Chen MH (2010) Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res 89:549–560CrossRefPubMed

28.

Cetin AR, Unlu N (2009) One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Mater J 28:620–626CrossRefPubMed

29.

Stefanski S, van Dijken JW (2012) Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 16:147–53CrossRefPubMed

30.

Østervemb N, Jørgensen JN, Hørsted-Bindslev P (2011) A new approach to compare the esthetic properties of different composite materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 23:238–246CrossRefPubMed

31.

Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H (2012) Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 25:79–85PubMed

32.

Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B (2004) A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 6:65–76PubMed

33.

D’Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, D’Amario M (2012) Clinical evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light-cured composite: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 16:1071–1079CrossRefPubMed

34.

Layton D, Walton T (2007) An up to 16-year prospective study of 304 porcelain veneers. The Int J Prosthodont 20:389–396PubMed

35.

Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M (2005) Porcelain laminate veneers: 6- to 12-year clinical evaluation—a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:9–17PubMed

36.

De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84:118–132CrossRefPubMed

37.

Loguercio AD, Moura SK, Pellizzaro A, Dal-Bianco K, Patzlaff RT, Grande RH, Reis A (2008) Durability of enamel bonding using two-step self-etch systems on ground and unground enamel. Oper Dent 33:79–88CrossRefPubMed

38.

Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 11:5–33CrossRefPubMed

39.

Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G (2007) Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 23:51–59CrossRefPubMed

40.

Condon JR, Ferracane JL (2002) Reduced polymerization stress through non-bonded nanofiller particles. Biomaterials 23:3807–3815CrossRefPubMed

41.

Yap AUJ, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ (2004) Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 29:100–104PubMed

Title: A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment
Authors: Mustafa Demirci
Safa Tuncer
Evren Öztaş
Neslihan Tekçe
Ömer Uysal
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1458-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

Platform switching vs standard implants in partially edentulous patients using the Dental Tech Implant System: clinical and radiological results from a prospective multicenter study

Assessing the accuracy of autofluorescence, chemiluminescence and toluidine blue as diagnostic tools for oral potentially malignant disorders—a clinicopathological evaluation

Oral health-related quality of life before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

In vitro treatment of Candida albicans biofilms on denture base material with volume dielectric barrier discharge plasma (VDBD) compared with common chemical antiseptics

Inhibition of adherence of C. albicans to dental implants and cover screws by Cymbopogon nardus essential oil and citronellal

Dental discoloration caused by bismuth oxide in MTA in the presence of sodium hypochlorite