Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-04-2021 | Composite Restoration | Original Article

Does a new formula have an input in the clinical success of posterior composite restorations? A chat study

Authors: Sevil Gurgan, Uzay Koc Vural, Zeynep Bilge Kutuk, Filiz Yalcin Cakir

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2021

Abstract

Objective

To compare the clinical behavior of a universal light-curing, ultra-fine particle hybrid composite and successor of this material in class I and II cavities after 60 months.

Materials and methods

Forty patients (21 females, 19 males) with ages ranging between 18 and 38 years (23.15 ± 5.15) received 80 (13 Cl I and 67 Cl II) resin composite restorations (Charisma/Charisma Classic, Kulzer GmbH) in combination with an etch and rinse adhesive system (Gluma 2Bond) under rubber dam isolation. Two experienced operators performed all the restorations. Restorations were evaluated by the other two examiners according to the FDI criteria at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Surface characteristics of one restoration selected randomly were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at each recall. Data were analyzed statistically (p < 0.05).

Results

After 60 months, recall rate was 90%. None of the restorations failed. Three restorations from Charisma and 4 from the Charisma Classic group showed minor surface staining. Twelve Charisma and 14 Charisma Classic restorations were scored as 2 for margin staining. Four restorations from both groups showed minor shade deviations but no significant difference was observed between the two restorative materials for any criteria evaluated after 60 months (p > 0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.

Conclusions

Both materials exhibited clinically similar and successful performance over the 60-month observation period.

Clinical relevance

A new formulation of resin composite may not always perform better clinical performances.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02888873

Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, Shearer AC, Vanherle G, Wilson NH (2014) Academy of Operative Dentistry European, Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 42(4):377–383PubMed

Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, Gaengler P, Lindberg A, Huysmans MC, van Dijken JW (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93(10):943–949PubMedPubMedCentral

Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28(1):87–101PubMed

da Veiga AM, Cunha AC, Ferreira DM, da Silva Fidalgo TK, Chianca TK, Reis KR, Maia LC (2016) Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 54:1–12PubMed

Collares K, Opdam NJM, Laske M, Bronkhorst EM, Demarco FF, Correa MB, Huysmans M (2017) Longevity of anterior composite restorations in a general dental practice-based network. J Dent Res 96(10):1092–1099PubMed

Heintze SD, Rousson V (2012) Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 14(5):407–431PubMed

Ilie N, Hickel R (2009) Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 13(4):427–438PubMed

de Moraes RR, Goncalves Lde S, Lancellotti AC, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA (2009) Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? Oper Dent 34(5):551–557PubMed

Turssi CP, Faraoni-Romano JJ, de Menezes M, Serra MC (2007) Comparative study of the wear behavior of composites for posterior restorations. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18(1):143–147PubMed

10.

Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF (2011) 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 27(10):955–963PubMed

11.

Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29(5):481–508PubMed

12.

Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89(10):1063–1067PubMed

13.

AlHumaid J, Al Harbi FA, ElEmbaby AE (2018) Performance of self-adhering flowable composite in class V restorations: 18 months clinical study. J Contemp Dent Pract 19(7):785–791PubMed

14.

Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA (2012) Clinical evaluation of nanofill and nanohybrid composite in class I restorations: a 12-month randomized trial. Gen Dent 60(4):e255–e262PubMed

15.

Araujo JF, Barros TA, Braga EM, Loretto SC, Souza Pde ASE, Souza MHSE (2013) One-year evaluation of a simplified ethanol-wet bonding technique: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Dent J 24(3):267–272PubMed

16.

Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98--FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 1):121–147PubMed

17.

de Souza LC, Rodrigues NS, Cunha DA, Feitosa VP, Santiago SL, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Matos TP, Saboia VPA, Perdigao J (2019) Two-year clinical evaluation of proanthocyanidins added to a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent 81:7–16PubMed

18.

Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, Zanatta FB, Balbinot CE, Garcia-Godoy F, De Araujo FB (2013) Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent 26(6):351–355PubMed

19.

Lestik M (1997) Research randomized program, Pennsylvania

20.

Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjor I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD (2010) FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 14(4):349–366PubMed

21.

Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Heymann HO, Wilder AD Jr, Bayne SC, May KN Jr, Sturdevant JR, Roberson TM (2001) Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a filled and unfilled dentin adhesive. J Dent 29(1):1–6PubMed

22.

Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Geraldeli S (2005) Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin. J Adhes Dent 7(3):253–258PubMed

23.

Reis A, Loguercio AD (2009) A 36-month clinical evaluation of ethanol/water and acetone-based etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34(4):384–391PubMed

24.

Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigao J (2013) A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 25(1):55–69PubMed

25.

Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2014) A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 39(2):113–127PubMed

26.

Montag R, Dietz W, Nietzsche S, Lang T, Weich K, Sigusch BW, Gaengler P (2018) Clinical and micromorphologic 29-year results of posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res 97(13):1431–1437PubMed

27.

Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA (2007) Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent 9(5):469–475PubMed

28.

Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28(2):111–116PubMed

29.

Pallesen U, van Dijken JW, Halken J, Hallonsten AL, Hoigaard R (2013) Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in public dental health service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent 41(4):297–306PubMed

30.

Coppola MN, Ozcan YA, Bogacki R (2003) Evaluation of performance of dental providers on posterior restorations: does experience matter? A data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. J Med Syst 27(5):445–456PubMed

31.

Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003) Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31(6):395–405PubMed

32.

van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Rodolpho PA, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Cenci MS (2013) Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res 92(7 Suppl):78S–83SPubMed

33.

Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH, Higashi C, Queiroz VA, Rego RO, Reis A (2015) Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage. Patients' Preference, and Restoration Retention in Noncarious Cervical Lesions, Oper Dent 40(6):581–593PubMed

34.

Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K (2019) 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. J Appl Oral Sci 27:e20180678PubMedPubMedCentral

35.

da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF (2006) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 34(7):427–435PubMed

36.

Pallesen U, Qvist V (2003) Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 7(2):71–79PubMed

37.

Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3(2):185–194PubMed

38.

Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson NH (1999) Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report. J Dent 27(1):13–19PubMed

39.

Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Plasschaert AJ (2007) The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness. J Dent 35(2):104–108PubMed

40.

Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters JF, Bronkhorst EM, Plasschaert AJ (2006) Influence of composite resin consistency and placement technique on proximal contact tightness of class II restorations. J Adhes Dent 8(5):305–310PubMed

41.

Perdigao J, Dutra-Correa M, Castilhos N, Carmo AR, Anauate-Netto C, Cordeiro HJ, Amore R, Lewgoy HR (2007) One-year clinical performance of self-etch adhesives in posterior restorations. Am J Dent 20(2):125–133PubMed

42.

Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto Y, Akamine A (2004) Self-etching adhesives and postoperative sensitivity. Am J Dent 17(3):191–195PubMed

43.

Parreiras SO, Szesz AL, Coppla FM, Martini EC, Farago PV, Loguercio AD, Reis A (2018) Effect of an experimental desensitizing agent on reduction of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 149(4):281–290PubMed

44.

Chung SM, Yap AU, Tsai KT, Yap FL (2005) Elastic modulus of resin-based dental restorative materials: a microindentation approach. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 72(2):246–253PubMed

45.

Schultz S, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G (2010) Mechanical properties and three-body wear of dental restoratives and their comparative flowable materials. Quintessence Int 41(1):e1–e10PubMed

46.

de Moraes RR, Marimon JL, Schneider LF, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L, Bueno M (2008) Effects of 6 months of aging in water on hardness and surface roughness of two microhybrid dental composites. J Prosthodont 17(4):323–326PubMed

47.

Moraes RR, Ribeiro Ddos S, Klumb MM, Brandt WC, Correr-Sobrinho L, Bueno M (2008) In vitro toothbrushing abrasion of dental resin composites: packable, microhybrid, nanohybrid and microfilled materials. Braz Oral Res 22(2):112–118PubMed

48.

Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2005) Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations, Am J Dent 18(2):75–81PubMed

Title: Does a new formula have an input in the clinical success of posterior composite restorations? A chat study
Authors: Sevil Gurgan
Uzay Koc Vural
Zeynep Bilge Kutuk
Filiz Yalcin Cakir
Publication date: 01-04-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Composite Restoration
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03472-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Does a new formula have an input in the clinical success of posterior composite restorations? A chat study

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Trial registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Effect of endodontic treatment on periodontal healing of grade 3 endo-periodontal lesions without root damage in periodontally compromised patients—a retrospective pilot study

Fissure caries inhibition with a CO2 9.3-μm short-pulsed laser—a randomized, single-blind, split-mouth controlled, 1-year clinical trial

Assessment of gingival thickness using digital file superimposition versus direct clinical measurements

Prediction of appropriate formula for nasotracheal tube size in developmental disability children

Biological and technical complications in root cap–retained overdentures after 3–15 years in situ: a retrospective clinical study

Hydraulic conductance of dentin after treatment with fluoride toothpaste containing sodium trimetaphosphate microparticles or nanoparticles