Local deformation fields and marginal integrity of sculptable bulk-fill, low-shrinkage and conventional composites

Miletić, Vesna; Peric, Dejan; Milošević, Miloš; Manojlović, Dragica; Mitrović, Nenad

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.011

Cited by 39 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Miletic et al. reported that volumetric shrinkage of SFRC was similar or lower than tested conventional PFC resins, and that glass fiber fillers did not alter the shrinkage behavior of SFRC in the measuring setup used . This in accordance with Al Sunbul et al., who investigated the shrinkage stress of 18 commercially‐available composite resins .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short fiber‐reinforced composite restorations: A review of the current literature

Garoushi

Gargoum

Vallittu

et al. 2018

J of Invest & Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A newly-recommended method for restoring large cavities is the biomimetic approach of using short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) as dentine-replacing material. The aim of the current review was to present an overview of SFRC and to give the clinician a detailed understanding of this new material and treatment strategy based on available-literature review. A thorough literature search was done up to December 2017. The range of relevant publications was surveyed using PubMed and Google Scholar. From the search results, articles related to our search terms were only considered. The search terms used were "short fiber-reinforced composite", "everX posterior", and "fiber-reinforced composite restorations". Of the assessed articles selected (N = 70), most were laboratory-based research with various test specimen designs prepared according to the ISO standard or with extracted teeth; only four articles were clinical reports. A common finding was that by combining the SFRC as a bulk base with conventional composite, the load-bearing capacity and failure mode of the material combination were improved, as compared to plain conventional composite restoration. In the reviewed studies, the biomimetic restoration technique of using SFRC showed promising characteristics, and therefore, might be recommended as an alternative treatment option for large cavities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short fiber‐reinforced composite restorations: A review of the current literature

Garoushi

Gargoum

Vallittu

et al. 2018

J of Invest & Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This material has only been evaluated as part of bulk-fill studies, where the main focus was not the stress development aspect, but the depth of cure and the influence of the placement technique [60, 61]. However, in selected publications, this material showed decreased gap formation compared to that of a conventional composite of the same manufacturer when the material was placed in a single increment, presumably due to the reduced polymerization stress [62]. Finally, other materials contain proprietary compounds (“stress modulators”) that are, according to the manufacturer, capable of stress relaxation.…”

Section: Newer Monomers and Low-shrinkage/low-stress Compositesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polymer-Based Direct Filling Materials

Pfeifer

2017

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synopsis After a brief review of current restorative materials and classifications, this article discusses the latest developments in polymer-based direct filling materials, with emphasis on products and studies available in the last 10 years. This will include the more recent bulk-fill composites and self-adhesive materials, for which clinical evidence of success, albeit somewhat limited, is already available. The article will also introduce the latest cutting edge research topics on new materials for composite restorations, and an outlook for the future of how those may help improve the service-life of dental composite restorations.

show abstract

“…On the contrary, a study carried out by Miletic et al (39), compared strain, displacement, as well as microleakage of bulk-fill (FiltekBulk Fill Posterior, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, fiber-reinforcedEverX Posterior, giomer Beautifil Bulk), lowshrinkage (Kalore, GC), and conventional nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram), microhybrid (Filtek Z250), in modified Class II cavities in permanent molars. They found that, incrementally placed conventional composites resulted in less gingival leakage than bulk-fill composites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite in Class Ii Restorations of Primary Molars

Eltoum

Bakry

Talaat

et al. 2019

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION:Bulk-fill composites are promising restorative materials which may minimize placement time yet provide successful, durable esthetic restoration. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate marginal microleakage of nano-hybrid bulk-fill composite, and compare it to incrementally placed conventional nano-hybrid composite when used to restore proximal cavities in primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The sample consisted of 44 freshly extracted sound primary molars. Standardized proximal cavity preparations were prepared and the sample was divided randomly into 2 equal groups: Group I (n=22): Teeth were restored with nano-hybrid bulk-fill composite, Group II (n=22): Teeth were restored with incrementally placed conventional nano-hybrid composite. All specimens were thermocycled and immersed in 2% methylene blue dye at 37C˚ for 24 hours. Methylene blue penetration was assessed on a 4 point grading scale (0 to 3) using a stereomicroscope to evaluate the microleakage of the restorations. Data were statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference has been found in the microleakage scores of group I at occlusal and cervical margin (p=1.000). In group II, no statistically significant difference has been found in the microleakage scores between occlusal and cervical margins (P=0.366). Comparing the microleakage scores of group I and group II, no statistically significant difference has been found (p=0.240). Although no significant difference was detected, bulk-fill composite showed lower microleakage scores than incrementally placed conventional composite. CONCLUSIONS: Bulk-fill composite restoration marginal integrity was comparable to incrementally placed conventional composite in proximal cavities of primary molars.

show abstract

Local deformation fields and marginal integrity of sculptable bulk-fill, low-shrinkage and conventional composites

Cited by 39 publications

References 29 publications

Short fiber‐reinforced composite restorations: A review of the current literature

Short fiber‐reinforced composite restorations: A review of the current literature

Polymer-Based Direct Filling Materials

Microleakage Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite in Class Ii Restorations of Primary Molars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About