Thirty‐six month clinical evaluation of a highly filled flowable composite for direct posterior restorations

Abstract

The highly filled flowable composite showed a comparable clinical effectiveness as the conventional paste composite in posterior restorations over 36 months.

The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review

“…The most employed criteria were: marginal adaptation (criterion 6; 29 studies, i.e. 96.7% of the studies) [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], staining (criterion 2; 27 studies, i.e. 90.0% of the studies) [9-18, 20-23, 25-30, 32-38], fracture of material and retention (criterion 5;…”

Two‐year clinical comparison of a flowable‐type nano‐hybrid composite and a paste‐type composite in posterior restoration

“…It has adequate strength and abrasion resistance for application to posterior restoration. Recently, a comparative study of clinical performance using Fédération dentaire internationale criteria was conducted with a conventional paste‐type composite (Estelite Sigma Quick; Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan), introduced in 2007, and MI FIL, and no significant differences were found between them for all of the evaluation parameters . However, results of clinical performance for Estelite Sigma Quick were not obtained.…”

“…Recently, a comparative study of clinical performance using F ed eration dentaire internationale criteria was conducted with a conventional paste-type composite (Estelite Sigma Quick; Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan), introduced in 2007, and MI FIL, and no significant differences were found between them for all of the evaluation parameters. 24 However, results of clinical performance for Estelite Sigma Quick were not obtained. In the present study, MI FIL was evaluated at 2 postoperative years by comparing it with Heliomolar, a paste-type composite accepted worldwide since its release in 1984 for use in posterior restoration cases that has been evaluated in several previous clinical studies, including postoperative evaluations.…”

“…For better flowability, previously‐used flowable‐type composites contained less filler, thus were mainly used in the lining of the cavity and the filling of the cavity free from occlusal pressure . Recently, nanotechnology, as well as filler surface preparation technology, have greatly improved the properties of flowable‐type composites, which has led to development of a new flowable‐type composite with good strength, abrasion resistance, and excellent anatomy‐forming properties, and expanded clinical application for the occlusal cavity …”

“…19,20 Recently, nanotechnology, as well as filler surface preparation technology, have greatly improved the properties of flowabletype composites, 12,21 which has led to development of a new flowable-type composite with good strength, abrasion resistance, and excellent anatomy-forming properties, and expanded clinical application for the occlusal cavity. [22][23][24] In the present study, a newly-developed, flowable-type nano-hybrid composite (MI FIL [MI group], G-aenial Universal Flo; GC, Tokyo, Japan) and Heliomolar (HM group) were clinically evaluated for 2 years to compare their performance in posterior cavity restoration cases. The hypothesis tested was that clinical properties of the flowable-type nano-hybrid composite restorations show no difference from those of the paste-type composite restorations.…”