No abstract

SUMMARY This study evaluated the clinical performance of low-shrinkage bioactive resin composite compared with a conventional nanohybrid resin composite. A total of 35 patients (18 males, 17 females; mean age: 29±9 years old) received, randomly, 35 pairs of fillings restored with either low-shrinkage bioactive material employing Giomer filler technology (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or conventional nanohybrid resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Japan) in Class I and Class II cavities. Two operators made all the restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins: FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), according to each manufacturer’s instructions. Two calibrated operators evaluated the restorations two weeks after placement (baseline), at six months, and at one and two years using FDI criteria (Scores 1-5). Data were analyzed using the McNemar test (α=0.05). Mean observation time was 27.4 ± 4.1 months (min=20.8; max=33.7). In both groups, according to FDI criteria, the restorations were mostly rated with best scores (Score 1 or 2) for biological, functional, and optical parameters. For one filling in the group restored with nanohybrid resin composite, a small and localized secondary caries lesion was observed and monitored at the one- and two-year follow-ups. One restoration in the low-shrinkage Giomer restorative group was accepted as a failure due to retention loss. Over the two-year follow-up, both the Giomer and the nanohybrid resin composite restorations’ performance was clinically acceptable.

This prospective clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of indirect onlay and overlay restorations made of resin composite. From January 2012 to March 2013, a total of 60 patients (36 males, 24 females; mean age; 34.4±10 years) received 67 posterior onlay/overlay restorations in the maxila or mandible made of laboratory processed indirect composite (Gradia, GC, Japan). Patients were followed until March 2015. Two operators luted all restorations adhesively (Variolink II). Two independent calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline (2 weeks), 6 months, and then annually, during regularly scheduled maintenance appointments, using the modified USPHS criteria for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. The observation periods involved 4 recalls during 24 months. Changes in the USPHS parameters were analyzed with the Friedman and Bonferroni-adjusted Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests (α=0.05). The mean observation period was 24.1 months. All restorations assessed were clinically acceptable with alfa scores predominating. Two restorations failed due to severe pain and subsequent extraction during the observation period. Not the color match (p>0.05) but marginal adaptation (p<0.05), marginal discoloration (p<0.05) and surface roughness (p<0.05) showed a significant difference between baseline and the 2-year recall. No secondary caries or fractures were observed until the final follow up.The indirect composite tested demonstrated to be successful for posterior onlay and overlays but deteriorations in qualitative parameters were observed during the 2-year clinical service.

In this study, the clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite (SC) vs a nano-hybrid resin composite (NHC) was evaluated in Class II cavities. From January 2012 to February 2013, a total of 29 patients (eight men, 21 women; mean age, 24 ± 5 years) received 29 pairs of restorations using both SC (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) and NHC (Filtek Z550, 3M ESPE) materials. Patients were followed until February 2015. One operator performed all restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins according to the manufacturers' instructions. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations at one week, six months, and then annually using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Changes in the USPHS parameters were analyzed with the McNemar test (α=0.05). The mean observation period was 31.2 months. Marginal adaptation was the only parameter that showed a significant difference and was worse for SC than NHC (p=0.012). At the final recall, 17 restorations from the SC group and five from the NHC group received a score of 1 (explorer catches). These scores were significantly different between baseline and final recall for SC (p<0.001) but not for NHC (p>0.05). Both NHC and SC performed similarly in Class II restorations up to three years except for marginal adaptation, for which the latter demonstrated significant deterioration at the final recall compared with baseline.

No abstract