The influence of different placement techniques on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin composites placed in Class II cavities: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical study

Kılınç, Nazire Nurdan Çakır; Demirbuğa, Sezer

doi:10.1007/s00784-022-04749-7

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Staining of composite resins can be associated with the content of the materials, such as organic matrix, filler amount, and size [ 32 , 33 ]. It was reported that an ORMOCER-based composite resin (Admira, Voco) showed more staining compared to a nano-hybrid composite resin (GrandioSO, Voco) [ 10 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a 4-year study, decreased marginal adaptation was observed over time in all bulk-fill composite resin materials completed with incremental (2 mm) and bulk-fill (4 mm) techniques. Marginal adaptation and discoloration were not associated with the technique [ 38 ]. Contrary to these results, in a 36-month study, a bulk-fill composite resin showed better clinical performance than a nano-filled composite resin in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration [ 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study

Çağırır Dindaroğlu,

Yılmaz

2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill composite resin and a nano-hybrid-filled composite resin in 6-12-year-old children in a split-mouth design. Materials and methods This randomized, split-mouth, and double-blind study was conducted on 89 patients aged 6–12 years with caries on bilateral mandibular first molars. In a split-mouth design, restorations of mandibular permanent molars were completed with nano-hybrid organically modified ceramic (ORMOCER)-based bulk-fill composite resin Admira Fusion x-tra (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) and nano-hybrid composite Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). Futurabond U single dose (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) was used with selective enamel etching. The clinical success of the restorations was evaluated using USPHS and FDI criteria at 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up controls. Results In the 2-year follow-up, all restorations were clinically acceptable. Grandio was significantly worse than Admira Fusion x-tra in terms of surface luster and superficial change (p < 0.05). Surface staining and color match scores increased in Admira Fusion x-tra compared with Grandio significantly (p < 0.05). Conclusions Although both materials showed acceptable clinical performance over 2 years, a significant difference was observed between the surface luster, surface staining, marginal adaptation, and staining of the nano-hybrid composite placed with the incremental technique and the bulk-fill ORMOCER-based composite resin. Clinical relevance As an alternative to nano-hybrid composite resins, using bulk-fill restorative materials, which can be indicated in the proper case, may contribute to shortening treatment procedures and increasing patient and physician comfort, leading to clinical success.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study

Çağırır Dindaroğlu,

Yılmaz

2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over 24 months, the teeth were evaluated clinically every six months using the United States Public health Service (USPHS) Ryge criteria [ 38 ] and radiographically (presence or absence of peri-radicular radiolucency and secondary caries) every twelve months by two calibrated and blinded paediatric dentists (V.J, V.A.J). Inter- and intra-evaluator calibration was based on observing 20 clinical pictures and ten class-II restored Frasaco teeth with different clinical situations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Banon,

Vandenbulcke,

Van Acker

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and radiographic success of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer in restoring class-II cavities of primary molars. Materials and methods A non-inferior split-mouth design was considered. A pre-calculated sample size of 96 molars (48 per group) with class-2 cavities of twenty-one children whose ages ranged from 5 to 10 years were randomly included in the trial. Pre-operative Plaque Index (PI), DMFT/dmft scores and the time required to fill the cavity were recorded. Over 24 months, the teeth were clinically evaluated every six months and radiographically every 12 months by two calibrated and blinded evaluators using the United States public health service (USPHS)-Ryge criteria. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in success rate was considered to assess non-inferiority, and the margin was set at -18%. The linear mixed model and Firth’s logistic regression model were used for data analysis (P < 0.05). Results After 24 months, 86 teeth (43 per group) were evaluated. The mean PI score was 1.1(± 0.9), while DMFT/dmft was 0.35 (± 0.74) and 6.55 (± 2.25) respectively. The clinical and radiographic success rate of Dyract vs. ACTIVA was 95.3% and 88.3% vs. 93% and 86%, respectively. The two-sided 95% CI for the difference in success rate (-2.3%) was − 3.2 to 1.3% and didn’t reach the predetermined margin of -18% which had been anticipated as the non-inferiority margin. Clinically, ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match (P = 0.002) but worse marginal discolouration (P = 0.0143). There were no significant differences regarding other clinical or radiographic criteria (P > 0.05). ACTIVA took significantly less placement time than Dyract, with a mean difference of 2.37 (± 0.63) minutes (P < 0.001). Conclusion The performance of ACTIVA was not inferior to Dyract and both materials had a comparable high clinical and radiographic performance in children with high-caries experience. ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match but more marginal discolouration. It took significantly less time to be placed in the oral cavity. Trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 May 2018 (#NCT03516838).

show abstract

Fatigue and marginal adaptation of bulk fill restoratives: Effect of the layering technique and cavity dimension of extensively damaged teeth

Lopes,

Borba,

Bortoluzzi

et al. 2023

Dental Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of different placement techniques on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin composites placed in Class II cavities: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical study

Cited by 7 publications

References 43 publications

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Fatigue and marginal adaptation of bulk fill restoratives: Effect of the layering technique and cavity dimension of extensively damaged teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About