Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations

Loguércio, Alessandro Dourado; Rezende, Márcia; Gutiérrez, Mário Felipe; Costa, T.F.; Vega, Ana del Carmen Armas; Reis, Alessandra

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.018

Cited by 55 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…FB, TB, and AB groups are full-body bulk-fill composites with high ratio inorganic filler leading to increased viscosity (34). Clinical and laboratory studies report that bulk-fill resin composites can be applied successfully in large restorations (2,(35)(36)(37)(38). In the present study, all of the bulk-fill composites improved the failure load of teeth compared to conventional Bis-GMA based one, presumably resulting from their increased filler volume content and reduced polymerization shrinkage (39).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Bulk-Fill and Fiber-Reinforced Composites in Class II Cavities

Keskin

Gündoğar

Tek

2020

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with conventional, bulk-fill, and fiber-reinforced composite materials regarding intact teeth. Standard cavities were prepared on 70 sound third molar teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups: intact teeth, conventional Bis-GMA based composite, fiber-reinforced composite, Bis-GMA based bulk-fill composite, ormocer based bulk-fill composite, glass containing resin-based bulk-fill composite. The data was obtained by a Universal Testing Machine and analyzed statistically. Fracture resistance of the teeth restored with conventional composite was significantly lower than the other groups (p<0.05). The teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite showed the highest fracture resistance; however, there were no statistically significant differences between intact teeth and teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite, Bis-GMA based bulk-fill composite, and glass containing resin-based bulk-fill composite (p>0.05). The obtained data showed that restoring teeth with bulk-fill and fiber-reinforced composites could be recommended in Class II cavities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Bulk-Fill and Fiber-Reinforced Composites in Class II Cavities

Keskin

Gündoğar

Tek

2020

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ferracane

Lawson

2020

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective of this review is to present a synopsis of the existing clinical and in vitro evidence regarding placement of direct class II restorations with dental composites of varying viscosities, focusing on the marginal integrity achievable. Overview The literature on class II composites placed with various techniques was searched through PubMed, Scopus, and the citations of identified articles, focusing on aspects related to adaptation and clinical performance. Studies comparing layering of conventional composite to layering with a flowable liner, including the “snow plow technique,” use of warmed composite, flowable bulk‐fill liners with a conventional composite capping layer, and bulk‐fill restorative in a single or incremental fill (including placement with sonic energy and dual‐curing) Conclusions In vitro and clinical evidence does not support any one specific method or material type for achieving optimal performance when restoring class II cavity preparations with current dental composites. Clinical significance Although there are many available placement methods and types of composite materials on the market for use in class II restorations, the reasonable success presented in the clinical and laboratory literature for the various approaches suggests that the most important factor for achieving success is likely careful and proper placement and light‐curing technique, independent of the approach.

show abstract

“…43 Adhese Universal (ADU, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) resulted in very good in vitro and clinical results after up to 3 years. 55,[59][60][61] The E&R strategy showed less marginal discoloration and better marginal adaptation than the SE approach. In addition, the retention rate of ADU in NCCLs was not affected by dentin roughness created with a diamond but regardless of the adhesion strategy.…”

Section: Clinical Studies With Universal Adhesivesmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The E&R and the selective enamel etching strategies provided better clinical outcomes with All‐Bond Universal (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL) and Gluma Universal (Kulzer North America, South Bend, IN) at 2 years 43 . Adhese Universal (ADU, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) resulted in very good in vitro and clinical results after up to 3 years 55,59‐61 . The E&R strategy showed less marginal discoloration and better marginal adaptation than the SE approach.…”

Section: Universal Adhesivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations

Perdigão

Araújo

Ramos

et al. 2020

J Esthet Restor Dent

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To address contemporary concepts in adhesive dental materials with emphasis on the evidence behind their clinical use. Overview Adhesive dentistry has undergone major transformations within the last 20 years. New dental adhesives and composite resins have been launched with special focus on their user‐friendliness by reducing the number of components and/or clinical steps. The latest examples are universal adhesives and universal composite resins. While clinicians prefer multipurpose materials with shorter application times, the simplification of clinical procedures does not always result in the best clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the current evidence on adhesive restorative materials with focus on universal adhesives and universal composite resins. Conclusions (a) Although the clinical behavior of universal adhesives has exceeded expectations, dentists still need to etch enamel to achieve durable restorations; (b) there is no clinical evidence to back some of the popular adjunct techniques used with dental adhesives, including glutaraldehyde‐based desensitizers and matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors; and (c) the color adaptation potential of new universal composite resins has simplified their clinical application by combining multiple shades without using different translucencies of the same shade. Clinical Significance New adhesive restorative materials are easier to use than their predecessors, while providing excellent clinical outcomes without compromising the esthetic quality of the restorations.

show abstract

Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations

Cited by 55 publications

References 49 publications

Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Bulk-Fill and Fiber-Reinforced Composites in Class II Cavities

Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Bulk-Fill and Fiber-Reinforced Composites in Class II Cavities

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

Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About