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

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.

Effect of Polyols and Selected Dental Materials on the Ability to Create a Cariogenic Biofilm–On Children Caries-Associated Streptococcus Mutans Isolates

“…Similarly, the hypothesis that the most frequent surface location of secondary caries is the gingival margin of restorations has not been confirmed by available data [30]. While the caries risk or susceptibility of a patient seems to be the most relevant factor for secondary caries development, the risk of restoration failure due to secondary caries is significantly increased in high-risk caries patients compared with low-risk ones in available literature [6,31,32]. Moreover, factors such as the presence and size of restoration gaps or experience of the operator seem to play an important role in secondary caries development but need to be confirmed in in vitro and clinical studies.…”

Probing the hierarchy of evidence to identify the best strategy for placing class II dental composite restorations using current materials

“…63 e.Bulk-fill restorative, including sonic energy application Clinical: Twelve clinical trials were identified with this comparison ranging between 6 months and 10 years in duration. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] The trials described the bulk-fill restorative placed in up to 4 mm increments (one study reported 5 mm increments) 40 to the occlusal surface. Four trials included a bulk-fill restorative that was dispensed using sonic energy.…”

“…Clinical : Twelve clinical trials were identified with this comparison ranging between 6 months and 10 years in duration 34‐45 . The trials described the bulk‐fill restorative placed in up to 4 mm increments (one study reported 5 mm increments) 40 to the occlusal surface.…”

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

“…As stated above, this facilitates the restorative procedure as the material can fill cavities in a single step, avoiding a layering technique [ 49 , 50 ]. Recent clinical trials comparing bulk-fill composites with materials such as reinforced glass ionomers have confirmed their clinical success over the latter [ 51 ]. These materials are as aesthetic, have less technique sensitivity than conventional resin-based composites, and have comparable or superior mechanical properties [ 52 ].…”