Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(02): 179-192
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718639
Original Article

Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale Criteria: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial

Márcia de Almeida Durão 
1   School of Dentistry, University of Pernambuco, Avenida Agamenon Magalhães, S/N - Santo Amaro - Recife - PE, Brazil
,
Ana Karina Maciel de Andrade 
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Cidade Universitária, Brazil
,
Maria do Carmo Moreira da Silva Santos 
1   School of Dentistry, University of Pernambuco, Avenida Agamenon Magalhães, S/N - Santo Amaro - Recife - PE, Brazil
,
Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes 
1   School of Dentistry, University of Pernambuco, Avenida Agamenon Magalhães, S/N - Santo Amaro - Recife - PE, Brazil
,
Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro 
1   School of Dentistry, University of Pernambuco, Avenida Agamenon Magalhães, S/N - Santo Amaro - Recife - PE, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study was aimed to compare the 12-month clinical performance of two full-body bulk-fill resin composites Filtek bulk fill/3M ESPE (FBF) and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill/Ivoclar Vivadent (TBF) and a conventional microhybrid resin composite Filtek Z250/3M ESPE (Z250) using the modified the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Also, the agreement between the two evaluation criteria was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up.

Materials and Methods A total of 138 class I and II restorations were placed in posterior teeth (split-mouth design) of 46 volunteers following manufacturer’s instructions and bonded with a self-etching bonding agent (Clear fill SE Bond/Kuraray). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up by three previously calibrated dentists (Cohen’s K = 0.84).

Statistical Analysis Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test were used to evaluating the homogeneity of distribution of the clinical characteristics. Friedman’s test was applied to evaluate differences among the resin composites. The results obtained for the USPHS and FDI criteria at the different observation times were compared using the Wilcoxon test. A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted for all tests.

Results After 12 months (recall rate, 78.3%, n = 36 patients), the overall success rate was 99.07% for both criteria. Only one failed restoration (0.93%) was detected for each system during follow-up in the TBF group.

Conclusion The bulk-fill resin composites showed satisfactory clinical performance compared with conventional resin composite after 12 months. The percentage of the acceptable scores was significantly higher for the USPHS criteria, due to discrepancies in the score description for each criterion.

Keywords

dental restoration failure - permanent dental restoration - direct restoration - posterior teeth - resin composite - bulk-fill resin composite - randomized controlled trial


Publication History

Article published online:
26 November 2020

© 2020. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Li X, Pongprueksa P, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Curing profile of bulk-fill resin-based composites. J Dent 2015; 43 (06) 664-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-fill composites: a review of the current literature. J Adhes Dent 2017; 19 (02) 95-109
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J 2017; 222 (05) 337-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013; 38 (06) 618-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (03) 269-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alshali RZ, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD. Degree of conversion of bulk-fill compared to conventional resin-composites at two time intervals. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (09) e213-e217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Didem A, Gözde Y, Nurhan Ö. Comparative mechanical properties of bulk-fill resins. Open J Comp Mat 2014; 4: 117-121
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Miletic V, Pongprueksa P, De Munck J, Brooks NR, Van Meerbeek B. Curing characteristics of flowable and sculptable bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21 (04) 1201-1212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jang JH, Park SH, Hwang IN. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites and highly filled flowable resin. Oper Dent 2015; 40 (02) 172-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fronza BM, Rueggeberg FA, Braga RR. et al. Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation, and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composites. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (12) 1542-1551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rocha MG, de Oliveira D, Correa IC. et al. Light-emitting diode beam profile and spectral output influence on the degree of conversion of bulk fill composites. Oper Dent 2017; 42 (04) 418-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moszner N, Fischer UK, Ganster B, Liska R, Rheinberger V. Benzoyl germanium derivatives as novel visible light photoinitiators for dental materials. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (07) 901-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 3M ESPE. Filtek Bulk Fill, Technical product profile. Available at: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/792321O/filtek-bulk-fill-flowable-restorative-technical-product-.profile.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2018
  • 14 Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A. Influence of increment thickness on microhardness and dentin bond strength of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (10) 1104-1112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18 (08) 1991-2000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ivoclar Vivadent. Scientific Documentation. Available at: http://www.ivoclarvivadent.com/en/download-center/scientific-documentations/#T. Accessed May 21, 2016
  • 17 Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, Pedersen MK, Pallesen U. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent 2015; 40 (02) 190-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17 (01) 227-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Al-Harbi F, Kaisarly D, Bader D. El Gezawi M. Marginal integrity of bulk versus incremental fill class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2016; 41 (02) 146-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Algamaiah H, Sampaio CS, Rigo LC. et al. Microcomputed tomography evaluation of volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class II cavities. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017; 29 (02) 118-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fonseca ASQS, Labruna Moreira AD, de Albuquerque PP, de Menezes LR, Pfeifer CS, Schneider LFJ. Effect of monomer type on the CC degree of conversion, water sorption and solubility, and color stability of model dental composites. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (04) 394-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (01) 221-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent 2017; 8 (02) 1-9
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980; 30 (04) 347-358
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Turgut MD, Tekçiçek M, Olmez S. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite under different conditioning methods in primary teeth. Oper Dent 2004; 29 (05) 515-523
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S. et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2007; 11 (01) 5-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M. et al. FDI World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12 (04) 259-272
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS. et al. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (10) 955-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Häfer M, Jentsch H, Haak R, Schneider H. A three-year clinical evaluation of a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 2015; 43 (03) 350-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Coelho-De-Souza FH, Camargo JC, Beskow T, Balestrin MD, Klein-Júnior CA, Demarco FF. A randomized double-blind clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 1-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20 (02) 174-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD. et al. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent 2011; 39 (01) 8-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Guedes Lima SJ, Passos TA, Lima KC, Montes MA. Nanohybrid versus nanofill composite in class I cavities: margin analysis after 12 months. Microsc Res Tech 2011; 74 (01) 23-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16 (06) 585-592
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9 (04) 215-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E. et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93 (10) 943-949
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Alkurdi RM, Abboud SA. Clinical evaluation of class II composite: Resin restorations placed by two different bulk-fill techniques. J Oral Fac Sci 2016; 8: 34-39
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Çolak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Hamidi MM, Ercan E. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results. Niger J Clin Pract 2017; 20 (07) 822-831
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E. Thirty-six-month clinical comparison of bulk fill and nanofill composite restorations. Oper Dent 2017; 42 (05) 478-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans MC, Wilson NH. Age of failed restorations: a deceptive longevity parameter. J Dent 2011; 39 (03) 225-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (02) 150-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: a 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent 2016; 51: 29-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation. Eur J Oral Sci 2017; 125 (04) 303-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Göstemeyer G, Blunck U, Paris S, Schwendicke F. Design and validity of randomized controlled dental restorative trials. Materials (Basel) 2016; 9 (05) 372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Opdam NJM, Collares K, Hickel R. et al. Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: New directions and new demands. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (01) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar