A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations. Methodology: In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests. Results: At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05). Conclusion:Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities

Micro-computed tomography assesment of structural microporosity and marginal gaps in different flowable composites placed with different instruments

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the structural microporosity (MP) and marginal gap (MG) of different flowable composite resins placed with different instruments using micro-computed tomography (μCT). Materials and Methods: Standard Class II MOD cavities were prepared on 108 lower third molar teeth. Three different flowable composite resins; Filtek Bulk-fill, SDR Bulk-fill and I-Flow conventional flowable composite resin were applied to the cavities using a sharp explorer, a microbrush or an injector. After they were covered with a paste-like nanohybrid composite resin, μCT images were examined in terms of MP and MG. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc tests. Results: MP was observed less in explorer group than microbrush and injector groups (p 0.05). i-FLOW flowable composite resin showed the highest MP rate compared to the other two groups (p 0.05). In terms of MG, i-FLOW presented higher MG values than other two materials (p 0.05). Conclusions: Additional occluso-gingivally vibration of flowable materials with an explorer may be useful in the placement. Bulk-fill composite resins are better than conventional flowable composite resin in terms of MP and MG

Evaluation of six different one-step universal adhesive systems in terms of dentin bond strength, adhesive interface characterization, surface tension, contact angle, degree of conversion and solvent evaporation after immediate and delayed use

Objectives In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effects of different waiting periods on resin-dentin bond strength (BS), degree of conversion (DC), contact angle (CA), surface tension (ST), solvent evaporation (weight loss) and the characteristics of adhesive interfaces of the current six universal adhesive resins (ARs). Materials and Methods A total of 216 caries-free human lower third molar teeth were used. Composite resin restorations were performed by applying six universal ARs in etch-and-rinse and self-etch mode on standardized dentin surfaces after 0, 5, and 30 min waiting time. Then, a micro-shear BS test, SEM examination and characterization of the adhesive interface were performed. In addition, DC, CA, ST, solvent evaporation of all tested ARs were evaluated. Results The obtained data were statistically anaIyzed. The tested ARs did not show any statistical difference between 0 and 5 min evaluations in all parameters evaluated except for weight loss (p > 0.05). While the weight loss, ST and CA of all ARs increased in 30 min (p < 0.05), the BS, DC, thickness of the adhesive layer and the hybrid layer, resin tag length and number of resin tags varied according to the ARs used. When the ARs were used in etch-and-rinse mode, all the parameters evaluated also varied according to the AR used. Higher adhesive layer thickness and lower hybrid layer thickness were found in the self-etch mode (p < 0.05). Conclusions All of the adhesives tested can be safely used up to 30 min. This could also prevent economical loss caused by waste adhesive material. Clinical Significance It is important to know how the bond strength, degree of conversion, adhesion, contact angle and surface tension properties of the adhesive resin waiting in the dispensing cup for a long time during clinical use are affected to make ideal restorations

A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities

Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin

Resin simanların su emilimi ve çözünürlüklerinin değerlendirilmesi

Background: The luting cement around the margins of the indirectrestorations is in contact with oral and sulcular fluids. Water sorptionof the luting cements can also lead to material deterioration anddiscoloration. The aim of this study is to evaluate the water sorptionand the solubility of three different resin cements.Methods and materials: A totally 30 disc shaped specimens(n:10) were prepared from one light-cure (Variolink Esthetic LC,Ivoclar Vivadent) and two dual-cure resin cements (VariolinkEsthetic DC, Ivoclar Vivadent) one of which is self-adhesive (Rely XU 200, 3M ESPE). Specimens from each group were kept in a silicagel containing desiccator and weighed on an analytical balance(m1). Then the specimens were stored in closed flasks containing 2ml distilled water in an incubator at 37oC for seven days. After thestorage period, the specimens were weighed again to determine thevalue of m2, then they were placed into the desiccator to eliminatethe absorbed water. The specimens were weighed daily untilreaching a constant mass (m3). Percentages of the water sorptionand solubility were calculated. Data was analysed statistically withKruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance.Results: Water sorption (%) (p = 0,07) and solubility values(%) (p = 0,28) of the three cement groups were not statisticallysignificant.Conclusion: Curing type or adhesive properties of the cementsused for the study, did not differed in terms of water sorption orsolubility.</p