umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Randomized 3-year Clinical Evaluation of Class I and II Posterior Resin Restorations Placed with a Bulk-fill Resin Composite and a One-step Self-etching Adhesive
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Odontology, Dental Hygiene.
2015 (English)In: The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, ISSN 1461-5185, Vol. 17, no 1, 81-88 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: To evaluate the 3-year clinical durability of the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in Class I and Class II restorations. Materials and Methods: Thirty-eight pairs of Class I and 62 pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 44 male and 42 female patients (mean age 52.4 years). Each patient received at least two extended Class I or Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. In all cavities, a one-step self-etching adhesive (XenoV+) was applied. One of the cavities of each pair was randomly assigned to receive the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with an ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono+). In the other cavity, only the resin composite CeramX mono+ was placed in 2 mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 3 years. Caries risk and bruxing habits of the participants were estimated.

Results: No post-operative sensitivity was reported. At the 3-year follow-up, 196 restorations - 74 Class I and 122 Class II - were evaluated. Seven restorations failed (3.6%), 4 SDR-CeramX mono+ and 3 CeramX mono+ only restorations, all of which were Class II. The main reason for failure was tooth fracture, followed by resin composite fracture. The annual failure rate (AFR) for all restorations (Class I and II) was 1.2% for the bulk filled restorations and 1.0% for the resin composite-only restorations (p > 0.05). For the Class II restorations, the AFR was 2.2% and 1.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The 4-mm bulk-fill technique showed good clinical effectiveness during the 3-year follow-up.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 17, no 1, 81-88 p.
Keyword [en]
bulk fill, dental restorations, clinical, composite resin, nano, posterior, self-etching adhesive
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-103232DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33502ISI: 000353238700011PubMedID: 25625133OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-103232DiVA: diva2:812479
Available from: 2015-05-19 Created: 2015-05-18 Last updated: 2015-05-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
van Dijken, Jan W. V.
By organisation
Dental Hygiene
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 124 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf