Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid (GH) restorative and a nano-ceramic composite resin (CR) in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of bruxist individuals in a 60-month randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five bruxist candidates having NCCLs were recruited in this clinical study. The depth, height (cervico-incisal), width (mesio-distal), internal angles of the NCCLs, degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival index (GI) were measured. One hundred-and-forty-eight NCCLs were restored either with a GH restorative (Equia Forte Fil) or a CR (Ceram.X One Universal). Modified USPHS criteria was used to evaluate restorations after 1 week and 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact and Cochran Q tests were run for analysis. Survival rates of the restorations were compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After 60 months, 97 restorations in 15 patients were examined. The recall rate was 60.0%. Retention rates were 73.5% for CR and 66.7% for GH. A total of 29 restorations were lost (13CR (26.5%), 16GH (33.3%)). There was not a significant difference between tested restoratives in retention (p = 0.464), marginal adaptation (p = 0.856) and marginal discoloration (p = 0.273). There was no relationship between internal angle, depth, height or width and retention of the GH or CR restorations (p > 0.05). The increase in retention loss and marginal discoloration of both restorations over time were significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity or secondary caries were not detected after 60 months. CONCLUSION: GH and nano-ceramic CR showed similar clinical performances in NCCLs after 60 months in patients with bruxism. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: After 60 months, CR and GH materials showed clinically acceptable performances in restoration of NCCLs in patients with bruxism.

Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This clinical study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive material by comparing it with a resin composite (RC) in the restoration of Class II cavities over a year. METHODOLOGY: A hundred Class II cavities were restored at 31 participants. Groups were as follows: Cention N (CN) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and G-ænial Posterior (GP) (GC, Tokyo, Japan) in combination with G-Premio Bond (etch&rinse). Restorative systems were applied following manufacturers' instructions. They were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored based on retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, and 12 months. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, McNemar's, and Kaplan Meier tests. RESULTS: After 12 months, the recall rate was 87%. Survival rates of CN and GP restorations were 92.5% and 97.7%, respectively. Three CN and one GP restorations lost retention. Seven CN (17.9%) and five (11.6%) GP restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation and no significant difference was seen between groups (p=0.363). One (2.7%) CN and two GP (4.7%) restorations were scored as bravo for marginal discoloration, but no significant difference was observed between groups(p=1.00). For surface texture, three (8.1%) CN and three (7%) GP restorations were scored as bravo (p=1.00). None of the restorations demonstrated post-operative sensitivity or secondary caries at any examinations. CONCLUSION: The tested restorative materials performed similar successful clinical performances after 12 months. ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC04825379).

Clinical comparison of different glass ionomer-based restoratives and a bulk-fill resin composite in Class I cavities: A 48-month randomized split-mouth controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the retention rates (primary outcome) of high-viscosity glass ionomer (GI), glass carbomer (GC), zirconia-reinforced GI (ZIR), and bulk-fill (BF) composite resin restorations. Secondary outcomes included anatomical form, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, color match, surface texture, post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. METHODS: Two calibrated operators placed 128 restorations in 30 patients with a mean age of 21 years. The restorations were evaluated by one examiner at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 months using the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The data were statistically analyzed using Friedman test. Differences between restorations were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: After 48 months, 23 patients and 97 restorations (23 GI, 25 GC, 24 ZIR, and 25 BF) were evaluated. Patient recall rate was 77%. No significant difference was observed between the retention rates of the restorations (p > 0.05). GC showed significantly lower results than the other three fillings in terms of anatomical form (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the anatomical form and retention between GI, ZIR, and BF (p > 0.05). No significant change was observed in the postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries for any of the restorations (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GC restorations showed statistically lower anatomical form values, indicating lower wear resistance than the other materials. However, no significant difference was observed in the retention rates (as primary outcome) as well as the other secondary outcomes of the four different restorative materials after 48 months. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: GI-based restorative materials and BF composite resin restorations in Class I cavities yielded satisfactory clinical performance after 48 months.

Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract Objective This clinical study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive material by comparing it with a resin composite (RC) in the restoration of Class II cavities over a year. Methodology A hundred Class II cavities were restored at 31 participants. Groups were as follows: Cention N (CN) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and G-ænial Posterior (GP) (GC, Tokyo, Japan) in combination with G-Premio Bond (etch&rinse). Restorative systems were applied following manufacturers' instructions. They were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored based on retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, and 12 months. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, McNemar's, and Kaplan Meier tests. Results After 12 months, the recall rate was 87%. Survival rates of CN and GP restorations were 92.5% and 97.7%, respectively. Three CN and one GP restorations lost retention. Seven CN (17.9%) and five (11.6%) GP restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation and no significant difference was seen between groups (p=0.363). One (2.7%) CN and two GP (4.7%) restorations were scored as bravo for marginal discoloration, but no significant difference was observed between groups(p=1.00). For surface texture, three (8.1%) CN and three (7%) GP restorations were scored as bravo (p=1.00). None of the restorations demonstrated post-operative sensitivity or secondary caries at any examinations. Conclusion The tested restorative materials performed similar successful clinical performances after 12 months. ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC04825379).

Professional motivations and perceptions of senior dental students in the distance education period during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Purpose: Dental students are particularly prone to be affected by the global emergency of Coronavirus-19 (Covid-19) pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the professional motivations and perceptions of senior dental students during the distance education period due to pandemic. Materials and methods: The data was collected via an online questionnaire, including questions related to students' professional motivation and perceptions, and views about preventive dentistry. For identifying the distress levels, Turkish version of Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS)-21 was used. Descriptive statistics and marginal homogeneity test were used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 114 (83 female, 31 male) students, with the mean age of 23.7±1.03 participated the study. Statistically significant changes were observed on the students' career plans (p<0.001); fear about getting and transmitting infectious diseases (p<0.001); and satisfaction about their profession (p<0.001) during the Covid-19 pandemic. Motivation loss was determined on the participants. Conclusion: There is an urgent need for revision on dental education in order to ensure the students be competent to provide oral health service that can meet the latest needs and achieve professional self-confidence without deterioration on their professional motivation and perceptions. Crisis-oriented psychological support programs should be provided for students. Some improvements should be structured in terms of preventive dentistry issues, both for dental education and dental health service aspects.

Does a Self-adhesive Flowable Resin Composite Perform Similarly to Highly Filled and Conventional Flowable Resin Composites in Occlusal Cavities? A 2-year Follow-up Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this clinical trial was to compare a self-adhesive flowable resin composite, a highly filled flowable resin composite used in combination with a universal adhesive applied in self-etch mode, and a conventional flowable resin composite used in combination with a universal adhesive applied using two different application modes in occlusal cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients received 114 occlusal restorations. Cavities were divided into four groups: CS: a self-adhering flowable (Constic, DMG); GF: a highly filled flowable (G-ænial Universal Flo, GC) in combination with a universal adhesive applied in self-etch mode (G-Premio Bond, GC); TF-SE: a conventional flowable (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent) in combination with a universal adhesive (Tetric N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent) applied in self-etch mode; TF-ER: a conventional flowable (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent) in combination with a universal adhesive (Tetric N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent) applied in etch&rinse mode. Restorations were scored using modified USPHS criteria. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: At 24-month evaluations, none of the restorations were lost. The CS group showed significantly higher bravo scores for marginal adaptation than did the other experimental groups (p = 0.024). Significant changes were seen for CS and GF regarding marginal adaptation compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Although the self-adhering flowable resin composite exhibited inferior marginal adaptation compared to the highly filled flowable and conventional flowable resin composites, the restored teeth demonstrated a clinically acceptable performance after 24 months.

Does Rubbing of Universal Adhesive Reduce the Negative Effect of Saliva on Adhesion?

Purpose: To evaluate in vitro the effect of saliva contamination on bond strength of a universal adhesive applied with actively (with rubbing motion) and passively (without rubbing motion). Materials and Methods: A total of 144 bovine dentin samples were used, and the universal adhesive, Clearfil Universal Bond Quick, was either applied in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (passive application) or applied with rubbing motion for 10 s (active application). These 2 groups were divided into 6 subgroups according to saliva contamination (n = 12): 1. control: etch-and-rinse (no saliva); 2. control: self-etch (no saliva); 3. etching/saliva/bonding; 4. etching/bonding/saliva; 5. saliva/bonding; 6. bonding/saliva. A resin composite, Filtek Ultimate, was filled into a polyethylene mold (0.9 mm diameter, 1.2 mm height) on the surfaces. Samples were subjected to microshear bond strength testing, and five specimens from each group were examined using SEM. Resin-dentin interfaces were also observed using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). All failure modes were determined using light microscopy. Statistical analyses were performed with two-way ANOVA, the Kruskall-Wallis test, and the Mann-Whitney U-test (p < 0.05). Results: Active-application groups showed statistically significantly higher bond strengths than did passive groups, regardless of adhesive strategy and saliva contamination (p < 0.05). Application of Clearfil Universal Bond Quick in self-etch mode with rubbing motion improved the µSBS among control groups (p < 0.05). The active application did not make a significant difference among the active groups (p > 0.05), except in group 2. Groups 2 and 5 showed significantly higher µSBS than group 3 among the passive groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Rubbing the universal adhesives without any prior etching may increase the dentin bond strength. Following etching, passive application of the universal adhesive (without any additional rubbing motion) could affect the bonding to dentin in the presence of saliva.

One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months. METHODOLOGY: 134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-ænial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar's tests were used to detect differences over time. RESULTS: After 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months. CONCLUSION: Although the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.

Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative compared with a nano-ceramic composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with bruxism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with NCCLs and bruxism were enrolled in the present study. Before treatment, the dimensions of the NCCLs (depth, cervico-incisal height, and mesio-distal width) and internal angles were measured. Degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival conditions were recorded. A total of 148 NCCLs were randomly restored with a glass hybrid restorative system (GH) (Equia Forte Fil, GC, Tokyo, Japan) or a nano-ceramic composite resin (RBC) (Ceram.X One Universal, Dentsply, DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months according to the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Pearson's chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, and Cochran's Q tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: At the 24-month recall, 126 restorations in 22 patients were evaluated. The recall rate was 88.0%. No significant difference was found between the materials for retention (P = 0.285), and no relationships were found between internal angle, depth, cervico-incisal height, or mesio-distal width and retention of the restorations (P > 0.05). A significant difference was observed between the materials for marginal adaptation (P = 0.002), but no relationships were found among depth, cervico-incisal height, and mesio-distal width and marginal adaptation (P > 0.05). RBC showed better results for marginal adaptation. Between marginal adaptation, TWI, and the gingival index, correlations were significant (P < 0.001, P = 0.002). A significant change was found in marginal discoloration in GH and RBC over time (P = 0.039 and P = 0.004, respectively). Neither secondary caries nor tooth sensitivity was observed on any of the restorations at any evaluation. CONCLUSION: Although nano-ceramic RBC showed better marginal adaptation than GH, both tested restoratives showed clinically acceptable performance for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with bruxism after 24 months of clinical service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on http://clinicaltrials.gov under protocol record KA-16020, Clinical Performance of a Glass Hybrid Restorative in NCCL's of Patients With Bruxism.

One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial

Abstract Objective This randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months. Methodology 134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-ænial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar's tests were used to detect differences over time. Results After 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months. Conclusion Although the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year. Clinical relevance Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.