Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars

The aim was to test the null hypotheses that there is no difference: (1) in carious lesion development at the restoration margin between class II composite resin restorations in primary molars produced through the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel and (2) in the survival rate of class II composite resin restorations between two treatment groups after 2 years. Three hundred twenty-seven children with 568 class II cavitated lesions were included in a parallel mouth study design. Four operators placed resin composite (Filtek Z 250) restorations bonded with a self-etch adhesive (Adper prompt L pop). Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations after 0.5, 1, and 2 years using the modified Ryge criteria. The Kaplan–Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. A high proportion of restorations were lost during the study period. Therefore, the first hypothesis could not be tested. No statistically significant difference was observed between the cumulative survival percentages of restorations produced by the two treatment approaches over the 2-year period (ART, 54.1 ± 3.4%; ART with Carisolv™, 46.0 ± 3.4%). This hypothesis was accepted. ART with chemomechanical gel might not provide an added benefit increasing the survival percentages of ART class II composite resin restorations in primary teeth

Effect of cavity disinfectants on the sealing ability of nonrinsing dentin-bonding resins

WOS: 000222673900007PubMed ID: 15202592Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of three cavity disinfectants (chlorhexidine gluconate-based, Consepsis; benzalkonium chlorite-based, Tubulicid red; iodine-potassium iodide/copper sulphate-based, Ora-5) on the microleakage of nonrinsing dentin-bonding systems, Clearfil SE Bond and Prompt L-Pop. Method and materials: Class V cavity preparations were placed on the buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted molars with occlusal margins at the enamel and gingival margins in cementum. In the experimental groups, cavities were treated with combinations of one of the three cavity disinfectants with either Clearfil SE Bond or Prompt L-Pop. The preparations without disinfectant application were used as the negative controls for each adhesive system, and the cavities in which neither disinfectant nor dentin-bonding resin were applied, served as the positive controls. After the cavity preparations were restored with resin composite, specimens were thermocycled, stained, and sectioned to evaluate dye penetration. The tooth-resin composite interface of the sectioned specimens was examined under scanning electron microscopy. Results: Consepsis and Tubulicid red did not significantly affect the sealing ability of Clearfil SE Bond and Prompt L-Pop. Ora-5 exhibited gap formations at the tooth-resin composite interface and produced significantly higher microleakage when used with these bonding systems. Conclusion: Consepsis and Tubulicid red can be used as cavity disinfectants with Clearfil SE Bond and Prompt L-Pop without affecting their sealing abilities. However, Ora-5 is not an appropriate disinfectant to use with these bonding systems

The clinical performance of one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems at one year

WOS: 000229243100025PubMed ID: 15966655Background. The author compared the clinical performance of a two-step self-etching adhesive system and a one-step self-etching adhesive system over one year. Methods. Thirty-five patients with noncarious cervical lesions were enrolled in the study. The author restored 163 lesions using a two-step (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) or a one-step (Xeno III, Dentsply/DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) self-etching adhesive system. Enamel margins were not beveled, and no mechanical retentions were placed. The author evaluted the restorations at baseline and at three, six, nine and 12 months after placement using modified Ryge critera for color-matching ability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, initial caries formation, anatomical form, postoperative sensitivity and retention loss. Results. The author assessed the changes in the parameters using the Cochran Q test and the McNemar test at a significance level of .05. At one year, the retention rates for the restorations in the two-step group were 100 percent; they were 96 percent for the restorations in the one-step group. Of the retained 75 restorations from the one-step group, two had marginal discoloration and slight anatomical form problems. In both groups, color-matching ability and postoperative sensitivity remained excellent. Conclusion. The performance of both self-etching adhesive systems was excellent during this one-year clinical trial. However, the two-step system exhibited slightly better retention than the one-step system. Clinical Implications. The one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems evaluated in this study provided excellent clinical retention in noncarious lesions without mechanical retention

Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite

WOS: 000185404400020PubMed ID: 14528992Background. Packable resin-based composites were introduced in 1998, but few clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate them. The authors conducted a clinical study to determine the two-year performance of SureFil (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) packable posterior resin-based composite in Class I and II restorations. Methods. An operator (L.S.T.) restored 55 cavities in 36 patients (16 class I restorations). After cavity preparation, she etched the enamel with 34 percent phosphoric acid, applied Prime Bond NT (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH) to dentin and etched enamel for 20 seconds and then cured it for 20 seconds. She restored the cavity using 3- to 5-millimeter increments of SureFil. Independent examiners assessed the restoration after placement and at six months, one year and two years for color matching, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity, using the Ryge criteria. Results. The authors assessed the changes in the parameters during the two-year period using a software program with Friedman test analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment at significant level of P = .05. At baseline, 31 restorations were graded as Bravo for color match. At the six-month and one-year recall periods (n = 55), 53 restorations remained unchanged. Two restorations from the same patient fell out after one month. After two years (n = 50), there were five Bravos for surface staining and three for marginal adaptation (P < .05). Conclusion. After years of clinical service, SureFil packable resin-based composite had a success rate of 96 percent, and the authors considered it successful in Class I and II restorations. Clinical implications, SureFil packable resin-based composite can be successful in clinical situations with limited-sized cavities and proper application of restorative techniques

Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years

WOS: 000229811400007PubMed ID: 15892534Objective: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate SureFil packable resin composite for posterior restoration of permanent teeth for a period of 3 years. Method and materials: Fifty-five resin composite restorations were placed in 36 patients (16 Class I and 39 Class 11 restorations). After cavity preparation, the enamel was etched with 34% phosphoric acid. Prime & Bond NT was applied 20 seconds to dentin and etched enamel and cured for 20 seconds. The teeth were restored in 3- to 5-mm increments. The restorations were assessed after placement, at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years for color stability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, anatomic form, and postoperative sensitivity according to Ryge's criteria. The changes in the parameters were assessed with Friedman test analysis with a Bonferroni correction at a significance level of .05. Results: Forty of the monitored 47 restorations were classified as excellent after 3 years. Thirty-one restorations were graded Bravo at baseline for color match. At the 3-year assessment (n = 47) the color of the 31 restorations had not changed. Two restorations (same patient) were lost after 1 month and were scored as Charlie until the end of the study. After 3 years there were five Bravos and one Charlie with marginal discoloration, five Bravos with marginal adaptation, and three Bravos with anatomic form (P < .05). Conclusion: After 3 years of clinical service, SureFil packable resin composite, with a failure rate of 6%, was considered to be successful in Class I and II restorations

Effect of calcium hydroxide as an intracanal dressing on apical leakage

WOS: 000074260500004PubMed ID: 10321163In this in vitro study, we investigated the effects of the use of two different calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH2)) preparations as an intracanal dressing on the sealing ability of two different sealers were investigated. Eighty-eight freshly extracted, single-rooted maxillary anterior teeth were used. After the root canals were hand-instrumented, they were divided into six groups of 10 each. The root canals were dressed with Ca(OH)(2) paste, either mixed with sterile water (in groups 1 and 2) or with glycerine (in groups 3 and 4). The dressed root canals were incubated in 100% humidity at 37 degrees C for 7 days. In groups 5 and 6, the root canals were not dressed. After the root canal dressings were removed by irrigation with 5.25% NaOCl and remaining with a K-type file, all canals of the experimental groups were obturated with sealer ant gutta-percha using a cold lateral condensation technique. Calciobiotric Root Canal Sealer, (CRCS), (in groups 1, 3 and 5) and Diaket (in groups 2,4 and 6) were used as sealers. All specimens were placed in India ink for 7 days, and the amount of apical leakage was scored. Eight further prepared specimens were dressed with Ca(OH)(2) plus water or Ca(OH)(2) plus glycerine and examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) following the removal of dressings. There was a statistical difference in the leakage patterns amongst the 6 experimental groups (P < 0.05). Specimens in group 2 exhibited less leakage than the other experimental groups, except group 4 (P < 0.05). There were no other significant interactions. SEM examination revealed that Ca(OH)(2) crystals were present on the surface of smear layer in both groups where Ca(OH)(2) paste had been placed, but they did not penetrate into the dentinal tubules