Nanohybrid versus nanofill composite in class I cavities: Margin analysis after 12 months

Abstract

This study evaluates the margin of a nanofill, a nanohybrid, and a conventional microhybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth after 12 months. Forty-one patients, each with three molars affected by primary caries or the need to replace restorations, participated in this research. The teeth were restored with a nanofill (Filtek Z350), a nanohybrid (Esthet-X), and a microhybrid as a control (Filtek Z250). Ten patients were selected randomly, and the three restorations were molded with a low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane material. The molds were poured with epoxy resin, gold-sputter coated, observed by scanning electron microscopy, and classified as: "perfect margin," "marginal irregularity," "marginal gap," "marginal fracture," or "artifact." For statistical analysis, the Wilcoxon and Friedman nonparametric tests and paired-samples t-test were used (significance level of 5%). The performance of the three materials was compared after 1 week and 12 months. No statistically significant differences were detected for all criteria (P > 0.05). When each composite was compared over time, statistically significant differences were found for the criterion, perfect margins (Esthet-X and Filtek Z350, P < 0.05). The materials performed satisfactorily over the 12-month-observation period, but all composites under investigation showed a certain amount of deterioration relating to marginal quality over time.

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

“…Some of them focused on the assessment of marginal quality via scanning electron microsco- py. 33,34 Another research group took into consideration in different articles the evaluation of the occlusal wear of Class I and II restorations, by three-dimensional laser scanning positive gypsum replicas and observing them with scanning electron microscopy for the analysis of microwear patterns. 35,36 Main Findings From the Selected Studies Table 5 reports the mean AFRs, the failure indices (number of evaluated restorations 3 AFR), and the NFI calculated from the included studies.…”

“…The research group of de Andrade and coworkers published four articles 24,33,37,38 on their 54-month trial, designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of Class I restorations made either with a nanofilled or a nanohybrid composite, using a microhybrid composite control group. Their sample was constituted of 41 adolescent patients in a state of poverty.…”

“…The included articles generally fulfilled the criteria to ensure blinding of outcome assessment, selective reporting, and completeness of outcome data, with the exception of two studies, in which a substantial number of dropouts was observed 25 or less than onefourth of enrolled patients were subjected to the analysis. 33 Sporadic minor sources of study-specific methodological biases were identified and are reported in the relevant sections of Tables 2, 3, and 4.…”

The Optical Behavior of Nano Filled Resin Composite Loaded With Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles

“…Several clinical trials for review intervals of one to ten years revealed that this nanocomposite has good surface features, and color match, with no detection of restoration failure and postoperative sensitivity [38][39][40]. Reduced ller plucking and wear and improved polishability and surface gloss retention [41][42][43].…”

Untitled

“…The sample size was calculated using previous studies that evaluated restorations in posterior teeth. [31][32][33] Study designs that enable the evaluation of groups of materials with similar intraindividual comparisons have found significant differences for this sample size. 34…”