Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation.

This randomized study evaluated a flowable resin composite bulk-fill technique in posterior restorations and compared it intraindividually with a conventional 2-mm resin composite layering technique over a 6-yr follow-up period. Thirty-eight pairs of Class II restorations and 15 pairs of Class I restorations were placed in 38 adults. In all cavities a single-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In the first cavity of each pair, the flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments of up to 4 mm. The occlusal part was completed with a layer of nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono). In the second cavity of each pair, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2-mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then annually for a time period of 6 yr. After 6 yr, 72 Class II restorations and 26 Class I restorations could be evaluated. Six failed Class II molar restorations, three in each group, were observed, resulting in a success rate of 93.9% for all restorations and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.0% for both groups. The AFR for Class II and Class I restorations in both groups was 1.4% and 0%, respectively. The main reason for failure was resin composite fracture.

Three-year Randomized Clinical Study of a One-step Universal Adhesive and a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive in Class II Composite Restorations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate in a randomized clinical evaluation the 3-year clinical durability of a one-step universal adhesive and compare it intraindividually with a 2-step self-etch adhesive in Class II restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each of 57 participants (mean age 58.3 years) received at least two extended Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. The cavities in each of the 60 individual pairs of cavities were randomly distributed to the 1-step universal adhesive (All-Bond Universal: AU) and the control 2-step self-etch adhesive (Optibond XTR: OX). A low shrinkage composite (Aelite LS) was used for all restorations, which were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 years. RESULTS: 114 Class II restorations were evaluated at three years. Eight restorations, 3 AU and 5 OX, failed during the follow-up, resulting in 94.7% (AU) and 91.2% (OX) success rates (p > 0.05). Annual failure rates were 1.8% and 2.9%, respectively.The main reason for failure was composite fracture. CONCLUSION: Class II composite restorations placed with a 1-step universal adhesive showed good short-term efficacy.

Severe Tooth Wear: European Consensus Statement on Management Guidelines.

This paper presents European expert consensus guidelines on the management of severe tooth wear. It focuses on the definition of physiological vs pathological tooth wear and recommends diagnosis, prevention, counseling, and monitoring aimed at elucidating the etiology, nature, rate and means of controlling pathological tooth wear. Management decisions are multifactorial, depending principally on the severity and effects of the wear and the wishes of the patient. Restorative intervention is typically best delayed as long as possible. When such intervention is indicated and agreed upon with the patient, a conservative, minimally invasive approach is recommended, complemented by supportive preventive measures. Examples of adhesive, minimum-intervention management protocols are presented.

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.

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 bulkfilled 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.

Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. METHODS: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3%) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5%) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0%). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63%, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. CONCLUSION: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 10-year durability of a nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations in a randomized controlled intraindividual comparison with its conventional hybrid resin composite predecessor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each of 52 participants received at least two Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. The cavities were chosen at random to be restored with a nanohybrid resin composite (Excite/Tetric EvoCeram (TEC); n=61) and a conventional hybrid (Excite/Tetric Ceram (TC); n=61). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 10 years. The overall performance of the experimental restorations was tested after intra-individual comparison and their ranking was tested using Friedman's two-way ANOVA. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: Four patient drop-outs with 8 restorations (4TEC, 4TC) were registered during the follow-up. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 16 of the evaluated 52 patients were considered as high risk patients. In total, 22 restorations, 11 TEC (3 premolars, 8 molars) and 11 TC (3 premolars, 8 molars) restorations failed during the 10 years. The main reason for failure was secondary caries (50%). 63% of the recurrent caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants. The overall success rate at 10 years was 80.7%, with an annual failure rate of 1.9%. No statistically significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated resin composites. CONCLUSION: The nanohybrid and the conventional hybrid resin composite showed good clinical effectiveness in extensive Class II restorations during the 10-year study.

A prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth of children and adolescents in Public Dental Health Service: reasons for replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate reasons for replacement and repair of posterior resin composite (RC) restorations placed in permanent teeth of children and adolescents attending Public Dental Health Service in Denmark. MATERIAL AND METHOD: All posterior RC placed consecutively by 115 dentists over a period of 4 years were evaluated at baseline and up to 8 years later. The endpoint of each restoration was defined when repair or replacement was performed. The influence of patient, dentist and material factors on reasons for repair or replacement was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 4,355 restorations were placed. Replacements comprised 406 and repairs 125 restorations. The cumulative survival rate at 8 years was 84 %. Failed restorations were most frequently seen due to secondary caries (57 %), post-operative sensitivity (POS) (10 %) and RC fracture (6 %). POS was observed in 1.5 % of the evaluations and reported more often in girls and from teeth restored with a base material. Older dentists showed lower proportion of replaced restorations due to secondary caries than younger dentists. CONCLUSION: Posterior RC restorations in children and adolescents performed in general practice showed a good durability with annual failure rates of 2 %. The main reason for failure was secondary caries followed by post-operative sensitivity and resin composite fracture. A high proportion of replaced/repaired RC restorations were caused by primary caries in a non-filled surface. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Secondary caries was the main reason for failure of RC in children and young adults. More teeth with post-operative sensitivity and a shorter longevity of restorations were observed when a base material was used.

Influence of curing rate on softening in ethanol, degree of conversion, and wear of resin composite.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of curing rate on softening in ethanol, degree of conversion, and wear of resin composites. METHOD: With a given energy density and for each of two different light-curing units (QTH or LED), the curing rate was reduced by modulating the curing mode. Thus, the irradiation of resin composite specimens (Filtek Z250, Tetric Ceram, Esthet-X) was performed in a continuous curing mode and in a pulse-delay curing mode. Wallace hardness was used to determine the softening of resin composite after storage in ethanol. Degree of conversion was determined by infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Wear was assessed by a three-body test. Data were submitted to Levene's test, one and three-way ANOVA, and Tukey HSD test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Immersion in ethanol, curing mode, and material all had significant effects on Wallace hardness. After ethanol storage, resin composites exposed to the pulse-delay curing mode were softer than resin composites exposed to continuous cure (P< 0.0001). Tetric Ceram was the softest material followed by Esthet-X and Filtek Z250 (P< 0.001). Only the restorative material had a significant effect on degree of conversion (P< 0.001): Esthet-X had the lowest degree of conversion followed by Filtek Z250 and Tetric Ceram. Curing mode (P= 0.007) and material (P< 0.001) had significant effect on wear. Higher wear resulted from the pulse-delay curing mode when compared to continuous curing, and Filtek Z250 showed the lowest wear followed by Esthet-X and Tetric Ceram.

Awareness, knowledge and treatment decisions for erosive tooth wear: A case-based questionnaire among Danish dentists.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the knowledge and experience of erosive tooth wear (ETW) among Danish dental practitioners and, based on two cases, explore their treatment decisions. METHODS: We sent a validated questionnaire electronically to all active members of The Danish Dental Association and The Association of Public Health Dentists in Denmark. The questionnaire had two parts; the first focused on scoring, recordkeeping, knowledge and experience of ETW. The second part presented two patients with different severity of erosive lesions to explore the dentists preventive and restorative treatment decisions. RESULTS: We received 442 answers from 4,490 potentially eligible dentists in Denmark (response rate 9.8%). The majority (78%) was female and the median age was 44 years. Nearly all respondents (97%) registered ETW in the charts and 49% recorded "always" or "often" the patients' diet history, most commonly with aid of interviews. The respondents perceived the prevalence of ETW to be higher today than 10-15 years ago and male patients (15-25 years) appeared more affected than females. The majority (82%) thought that they usually found the probable cause of the condition with carbonated beverages being the most common factor. The treatment included dietary guidance, soft tooth brushing with non-abrasive fluoride toothpaste, topical fluoride applications and direct composite restorations. CONCLUSION: The majority of Danish dentists taking part of this survey had adopted a minimally invasive approach for the management of erosive tooth wear in young adults. There was however room for improvements in diagnosis, scoring and case documentation.

Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture frequency and longevity of fractured class IV resin composite (RC), polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer; PMRC), and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorations in a longitudinal long-term follow-up. Eighty-five class IV RC (43: Pekafil), PMRC (24: Dyract (D), Hytac (H)), and RMGIC (18: Fuji II LC (F), Photac Fil (P)) restorations were placed in ongoing longitudinal follow-ups in 45 patients (mean age 54.5 years). The restorations were evaluated during 14 years by slightly modified USPHS criteria at yearly recalls especially for their fracture behavior. For all restorations, 36.5% were fractured, with a Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate of 8.8 years (standard error (SE) 0.5, confidence interval (CI) 7.9-9.8). The number of fractures per material was 11 RC (25.6%; KM 9.9 years, CI 8.7-11.0), 13 PMRC (54.2%; D 66.6%; H 50.0%; KM 7.5 years, CI 5.8-9.2), and seven RMGIC (36.5%; F 22.2%, P 71.4%; KM 6.9 years, CI 7.9-9.8). Significant differences were seen between RC and PMRC (p = 0.043). A significant higher fracture rate was observed in teeth 12 + 22 compared to teeth 11 + 21. No significant differences were observed between male and female patients. Restorations in bruxing patients (45) showed 22 fractures (KM 8 years; CI 6.9-9.3) and in non-bruxing patients (39) nine fractures (KM 9.9 years, CI 8.7-11.1; p = 0.017). With regard to the longevity of the replaced failed restorations, for RC, the mean age was 4.5 years; for PMRC, 4.3 years; and for RMGIC, 3.3 years. It can be concluded that fracture was the main reason for failure of class IV restorations. An improved longevity was observed for class IV restorations compared to those presented in earlier studies. RC restorations showed the lowest failure frequency and the highest longevity.

A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the short time clinical behaviour of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), which is claimed to possess bioactivity, in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a nanofilled resin composite. METHODS: Totally 78 pairs Class II and 4 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 29 female and 38 male participants with a mean age of 58.3 years (range 37-86). Each patient received at random at least one pair of, as similar as possible, Class II or Class I restorations. In the first cavity of each pair, the modified flowable RMGIC (ACTIVA Bioactive; AB) was placed after phosphoric acid etching of the cavity and without adhesive, according to the instructions of the manufacturer. In the other cavity a well established nanofilled resin composite (CeramX; RC) with a single step self-etch adhesive (Xeno Select) was placed. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated. RESULTS: 158 restorations, 8 Class I and 150 Class II, were evaluated at the one year recalls. At baseline two failed restorations were observed (2AB), at 6 months six failures (5AB, 1RC) and at 12 months another thirteen failed restorations were observed (12AB, 1RC). This resulted in annual failure rates of 24.1% for the AB and 2.5% for RC (p<0.0001). The main reasons for failure for AB were lost restorations (5), postoperative symptoms (4) and secondary caries (3). Do to the unacceptable very high one-year failure frequency, the clinical study was stopped and no further evaluation will be performed. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of the AB restorative in Class II cavities, applied as instructed by the manufacturer after a short phosphoric acid pretreatment but without adhesive system, resulted in a non-acceptable very high failure frequency after a one year period. Further studies should be conducted using a bonding agent.

Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive, restorative material.

Objectives: Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive restorative material (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative) to human teeth were compared with those of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC) and a control resin composite (Ceram X Mono). Material and Methods: Shear bond strength and marginal adaptation to enamel and dentine were assessed after no pretreatment of the hard tissues or after etching with phosphoric acid (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative and Ceram X Mono) or polyacrylic acid (Fuji II LC). For ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative, the effect of applying a self-etch adhesive (Xeno Select, Dentsply Sirona) was also investigated. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (α = 0.05). Results: Bond strength and marginal adaptation in enamel and dentine were significantly different among the investigated materials (p<.05). Due to loss of restorations, it was not possible to measure bond strength of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative if no pretreatment was performed or if dentine was etched; however, use of the self-etch adhesive resulted in similar bond strength as Ceram X Mono. Etching improved adhesion of Fuji II LC to enamel and dentine. Regarding marginal adaptation, ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative showed the highest wall-to-wall contraction to enamel in all pretreatment groups and the overall highest wall-to-wall contraction to dentine after etching. Due to loss of restorations, no marginal assessment was possible on cavities with margins in dentine when no pretreatment was used. The use of a self-etch adhesive with ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative resulted in similar adaptation to dentine compared to the other materials. Conclusion: The self-adhesive property of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative is nonexistent.

Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical long-term retention to dentin of seven adhesive systems. METHODS: A total of 270 Class V restorations of four etch-and-rinse, one self-etch adhesive system and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement were placed in non-carious cervical lesions without intentional enamel involvement. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and then every year during a 13-year follow-up. Dentin bonding efficiency was determined by the percentage of lost restorations. RESULTS: During the 13 years, 215 restorations could be evaluated. The cumulative loss rate at 13 years was 53.0%, with significant different failures rates for the different systems varying between 35.6 and 86.8%. Four systems fulfilled the ADA 18-month full acceptance retention criteria. Two systems showed at 18 months and earlier high debonding rates. The annual failure rates for the etch-and-rinse systems were Optibond 3.1%, Permagen 13.0%, Scotchbond MP 4.8%, Syntac classic 2.8%; for the self-etch system P&S 4.4%; and the resin-modified glass ionomer cement Vitremer 2.7%. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that all systems showed a continuous degradation of the bond with a wide variation, which was independent of the adhesion strategy. Three bonding systems showed a cumulative failure rate after 13 years between 36 and 41% with the best retention for the resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a four-step etch-and-rinse system.

Durability of a low shrinkage TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system in Class II restorations. A 6-year follow up.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled prospective trial was to evaluate the durability of a low shrinkage and TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system in posterior restorations in a 6-year follow up. METHODS: 139 Class II restorations were placed in 67 patients with a mean age of 53 years (range 29-82). Each participant received at random two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations. In the first cavity of each pair the TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system was placed with its 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (cmf-els). In the second cavity a 1-step HEMA-free self-etch adhesive was used (AdheSe One F). The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 6 years. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated. RESULTS: Three molar teeth showed mild post-operative sensitivity during 3 weeks for temperature changes and occlusal forces. After 6 years, 134 Class II restorations were evaluated. Twenty-one restorations, 8 cmf-els (11.4%) and 13 ASE-els (20%) failed during the 6 years (p<0.0001). The annual failure rates were 1.9% and 3.3%, respectively. The main reasons for failure were fracture followed by recurrent caries. Most fractures and all caries lesions were found in high risk participants. SIGNIFICANCE: The Class II resin composite restorations performed with the new TEGDMA/HEMA-free low shrinkage resin composite system showed good durability over six years.

Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in a randomized controlled study the 5-year clinical durability of a flowable resin composite bulk-fill technique in Class I and Class II restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 38 pairs Class I and 62 pairs Class II restorations were placed in 44 male and 42 female (mean age 52.4 years). Each patient received at least two, as similar as possible, extended Class I or Class II restorations. In all cavities, a 1-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V+) was applied. Randomized, one of the cavities of each pair received the flowable bulk-filled resin composite (SDR), in increments up to 4mm as needed to fill the cavity 2mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with the nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono+). In the other cavity, the resin composite-only (Ceram X mono+) was placed in 2mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 5 years. Caries risk and bruxing habits of the participants were estimated. RESULTS: No post-operative sensitivity was reported. At 5-year 183, 68 Class I and 115 Class II, restorations were evaluated. Ten restorations failed (5.5%), all Class II, 4 SDR-CeramX mono+ and 6 CeramX mono+-only restorations. The main reasons for failure were tooth fracture (6) and secondary caries (4). The annual failure rate (AFR) for all restorations (Class I and II) was for the bulk-filled-1.1% and for the resin composite-only restorations 1.3% (p=0.12). For the Class II restorations, the AFR was 1.4% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The stress decreasing flowable bulk-fill resin composite technique showed good durability during the 5-year follow-up. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of a 4mm incremental technique with the flowable bulk-fill resin composite showed during the 5-year follow up slightly better, but not statistical significant, durability compared to the conventional 2mm layering technique in posterior resin composite restorations.

A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the durability of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations during 27 years. METHODS: Thirty participants, 25 female and 5 male (mean age 38.2 years, range 25-63), received at least three (one set) as similar as possible Class II restorations of moderate size. The three cavities were chosen at random to be restored with a chemical-cured (Clearfil Posterior) and two visible light-cured resin composites (Adaptic II, Occlusin). A chemical-cured enamel bonding agent (Clearfil New Bond) was applied after Ca(OH)2 covering of dentin and enamel etch. Marginal sealing of the restorations was performed after finishing. One operator placed 99 restorations (33 sets). Evaluation was performed with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 2, 3, 10 and 27 years. RESULTS: Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 5 patients. Three participants with 11 restorations (11%) could not be evaluated at the 27 year recall. Thirty-seven restorations failed (13 AII, 10 CP and 14 O). The overall success rate after 27 years was 56.5% (AII 55.2%, CP 63.0%, O 51.7%; p=0.70), with an annual failure rate of 1.6%. The main reason for failure was secondary caries (54.1%), followed by occlusal wear (21.6%) and material fracture (18.9%). Non-acceptable color match was seen in 24 (28.3%) of the restorations (AII 2, CP 16, O 6). Cox regression-analysis showed significant influence of the covariates tooth type, caries risk, and bruxing activity of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Class II restorations of the three conventional resin composites showed an acceptable success rate during the 27 year evaluation.

A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this 30 year randomized controlled study was to evaluate, by intraindividual comparisons, the durability of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. METHODS: Each of 30 participants, 21 female and 9 male (mean age 30 years, range 20-43), received at least three (one set) as similar as possible Class II restorations of moderate size. After cavity preparation, the three cavities were chosen at random to be restored with two chemical-cured (P10, Miradapt) and one light-cured resin composite (P30). A chemical-cured enamel bonding agent was applied after etching of the enamel. The chemical-cured resin composites were placed in bulk and the light-cured in increments. One operator placed 99 restorations (33 sets). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years. Statistical analyses were performed by the Kaplan-Meier, log-rank test and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: After 30 years, 5 participants with 15 restorations (15%) could not be evaluated during the whole evaluation. Seven participants were considered as caries risk and eight participants as having active parafunctional habits. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 24 teeth. In total 28 restorations, 9 P10, 12 P30 and 7 Miradapt restorations failed during the 30 years. The main reasons for failure were secondary caries (39.2%) and material fracture (35.7%). Sixty-four percent of the secondary caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants and 70% of the material fractures occurred in participants with active parafunctional habits. The overall success rate at 30 years was 63%, with an annual failure rate of 1.1%. 68-81% of the restorations showed non-acceptable color match. No statistical significant difference in survival rate was found between the three resin composites (p=0.45). The variables tooth type, cavity size, age, and gender of the participants did not significantly affect the probability of failure. SIGNIFICANCE: The three conventional resin composites showed good clinical performance during the 30 year evaluation. The chemical cured resin composites showed better performance than the light-cured composite.

Ethics of esthetic dentistry.

Patient demand for esthetics has increased globally, and often for reasons of patient self-esteem. However, important ethical issues encompass treatment for purely esthetic reasons. Also, perceptions of what is esthetic differ among patients and clinicians. Therefore, the aim of this article is to make suggestions regarding some of the issues surrounding the ethical, esthetic treatment of patients, as well as present three cases illustrating the different meanings of esthetic health to different people.

A randomized controlled three year evaluation of "bulk-filled" posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a flowable resin composite (SDR) bulk fill technique in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a conventional 2 mm resin composite curing technique in a 3-year follow up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight pairs Class II and 15 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 38 patients with a mean age of 55.3 years (range 32-87). Each patient received at random at least two, as similar as possible, Class II or Class I restorations of two restorative techniques. In all cavities a single step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In one of the cavities of each pair, a flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with a nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono) layer. In the second cavity, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2 mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 3 years. Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated. RESULTS: After three years, 76 Class II and 28 Class I restorations could be observed. One molar resin composite-only tooth showed post-operative sensitivity during 3 weeks for temperature changes and occlusal forces. Two failed Class II molar restorations in the resin composite-only group were observed during the first year, one cusp fracture and one resin composite fracture. An annual failure rate of 1.3% was found for the resin composite only restorations and of 0% in the bulk-filled restorations (n.s.). Ten participants were estimated as having high caries risk and eleven showed active bruxing habits. SIGNIFICANCE: The 4 mm bulk-fill technique with the flowable resin composite SDR showed highly clinical effectiveness, which was comparable during the 3-year follow-up with the 2mm resin composite layering technique.

A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this 6 year prospective randomized equivalence trial was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a new nano-hybrid resin composite (RC) in Class II restorations in an intraindividual comparison with its well-established conventional hybrid RC predecessor. METHODS: Each of 52 participants received at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations. The cavities were chosen at random to be restored with an experimental nano-hybrid RC (Exite/Tetric EvoCeram (TEC); n=61) and a conventional hybrid RC (Exite/Tetric Ceram (TC); n=61). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually during 6 years. RESULTS: Two patient drop outs with 4 restorations (2TEC, 2TC) were registered during the follow-up. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 16 of the evaluated 52 patients were considered as high risk patients. Eight TEC (2 P, 6M) and 6 TC (2P, 4M) restorations failed during the 6 years. The main reason of failure was secondary caries (43%; including the failure fracture+secondary caries it increases to 57.1%). 63% of the recurrent caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants. The overall success rate at six years was 88.1%. No statistical significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated RC. SIGNIFICANCE: The nano-hybrid RC showed good clinical performance during the 6 year evaluation, comparable to the well-established conventional hybrid RC.