Pre-operative use of dexamethasone does not reduce incidence or intensity of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity. A triple-blind, parallel-design, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of the administration of pre-operative dexamethasone on tooth sensitivity stemming from in-office bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A triple-blind, parallel-design, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 70 volunteers who received dexamethasone or placebo capsules. The drugs were administered in a protocol of three daily 8-mg doses of the drug, starting 48 h before the in-office bleaching treatment. Two bleaching sessions with 37.5% hydrogen peroxide gel were performed with a 1-week interval. Tooth sensitivity (TS) was recorded on visual analog scales (VAS) and numeric rating scales (NRS) in different periods up to 48 h after bleaching. The color evaluations were also performed. The absolute risk of TS and its intensity were evaluated by using Fisher's exact test. Comparisons of the TS intensity (NRS and VAS data) were performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test and a two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test, respectively. RESULTS: In both groups, a high risk of TS (Dexa 80% x Placebo 94%) was detected. No significant difference was observed in terms of TS intensity. A whitening of approximately 3 shade guide units of the VITA Classical was detected in both groups, which were statistically similar. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the administration pre-operatively of dexamethasone, in the proposed protocol, does not reduce the incidence or intensity of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of dexamethasone drug before in-office bleaching treatment does not reduce incidence or intensity of tooth sensitivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02956070.

Can composite packaging and selective enamel etching affect the clinical behavior of bulk-fill composite resin in posterior restorations? 24-month results of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This is a double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical study that aims to evaluate the influence of bulk-fill composite packaging presented in syringes (BSy) and capsules (BCa), and the effect of selective enamel etching (SEE) on the clinical performance of class I and II bulk-fill resin composite restorations after 24 months. METHODOLOGY: A total of 295 class I or class II restorations were performed on 70 patients. One universal adhesive was applied in all restorations. SEE was used in 148 restorations and self-etching mode (SET) in 147 restorations. After the adhesive application, cavities were restored with Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior Restorative in syringes (BSy), Filtek One Bulk-fill in capsules (BCa), or Filtek Supreme Ultra in syringes with the incremental technique (In). All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after one week and after six, 12, and 24 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Pearson's Chi-square test were used (α=0.05) for statistical analysis. RESULTS: After 24 months, 62 patients were evaluated and four restorations were lost due to fracture (one for SEEBSy, two for SEEIn, and one for SETIn). No significant differences in the fracture and retention rate were found between groups (p>0.05). SEE showed significantly fewer marginal adaptation defects than SET (p<0.05). BCa and BSy groups showed fewer marginal discrepancies compared to In (p<0.05). Restorations performed with BCa showed less color mismatch than BSy or In (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Although all restorations exhibited satisfactory clinical performance after 24 months of clinical service, the clinical behavior of class I and II restorations' improved when performed with a bulk-fill composite in capsules, mainly when associated with a universal adhesive applied with SEE.

Clinical time and postoperative sensitivity after use of bulk-fill (syringe and capsule) vs. incremental filling composites: a randomized clinical trial.

The objectives of this double-blind randomized clinical trial were to compare (a) the clinical times and (b) the occurrence and severity of postoperative sensitivity, of posterior restoration that used a universal adhesive, in a self-etch or selective enamel-etching technique, along with incremental or bulk-fill composites (presented in syringes or capsules). A total of 295 posterior restorations were placed according to the following groups: SETB - self-etch/bulk-fill in syringe; SETC - self-etch/bulk-fill in capsules; SETI - self-etch/incremental; SEEB - selective enamel-etching/bulk-fill in syringe; SEEC - selective enamel-etching/bulk-fill in capsules; and SEEI - selective enamel-etching/incremental. Clinical time was assessed by a reason (s/mm3) between the total volume of resin inserted and the total time required to perform the restorations. Postoperative sensitivity was evaluated using two scales (Numeric Rating Scale and Visual Analogue Scale). Mean clinical time results, analyzed by Wald's Chi-square, showed significant statistical differences among all groups (p<0.001), indicating that the restorative strategy affected the time required for the restoration. A generalized estimating equation model statistical analysis, performed to compare postoperative sensitivity, showed that neither the restorative technique, the adhesive strategy nor the presentation mode of the bulk-fill composite affected the overall risk of postoperative sensitivity (4.06 [2.22-6.81]). The use of bulk-fill composite, presented in capsules or syringes, is less time consuming and does not increase the risk or intensity of postoperative sensitivity relative to the traditional incremental technique.

Can composite packaging and selective enamel etching affect the clinical behavior of bulk-fill composite resin in posterior restorations? 24-month results of a randomized clinical trial

Abstract Objectives This is a double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical study that aims to evaluate the influence of bulk-fill composite packaging presented in syringes (BSy) and capsules (BCa), and the effect of selective enamel etching (SEE) on the clinical performance of class I and II bulk-fill resin composite restorations after 24 months. Methodology A total of 295 class I or class II restorations were performed on 70 patients. One universal adhesive was applied in all restorations. SEE was used in 148 restorations and self-etching mode (SET) in 147 restorations. After the adhesive application, cavities were restored with Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior Restorative in syringes (BSy), Filtek One Bulk-fill in capsules (BCa), or Filtek Supreme Ultra in syringes with the incremental technique (In). All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after one week and after six, 12, and 24 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Pearson's Chi-square test were used (α=0.05) for statistical analysis. Results After 24 months, 62 patients were evaluated and four restorations were lost due to fracture (one for SEEBSy, two for SEEIn, and one for SETIn). No significant differences in the fracture and retention rate were found between groups (p>0.05). SEE showed significantly fewer marginal adaptation defects than SET (p<0.05). BCa and BSy groups showed fewer marginal discrepancies compared to In (p<0.05). Restorations performed with BCa showed less color mismatch than BSy or In (p<0.05). Conclusion Although all restorations exhibited satisfactory clinical performance after 24 months of clinical service, the clinical behavior of class I and II restorations' improved when performed with a bulk-fill composite in capsules, mainly when associated with a universal adhesive applied with SEE.

Clinical time and postoperative sensitivity after use of bulk-fill (syringe and capsule) vs. incremental filling composites: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract The objectives of this double-blind randomized clinical trial were to compare (a) the clinical times and (b) the occurrence and severity of postoperative sensitivity, of posterior restoration that used a universal adhesive, in a self-etch or selective enamel-etching technique, along with incremental or bulk-fill composites (presented in syringes or capsules). A total of 295 posterior restorations were placed according to the following groups: SETB - self-etch/bulk-fill in syringe; SETC - self-etch/bulk-fill in capsules; SETI - self-etch/incremental; SEEB - selective enamel-etching/bulk-fill in syringe; SEEC - selective enamel-etching/bulk-fill in capsules; and SEEI - selective enamel-etching/incremental. Clinical time was assessed by a reason (s/mm3) between the total volume of resin inserted and the total time required to perform the restorations. Postoperative sensitivity was evaluated using two scales (Numeric Rating Scale and Visual Analogue Scale). Mean clinical time results, analyzed by Wald's Chi-square, showed significant statistical differences among all groups (p<0.001), indicating that the restorative strategy affected the time required for the restoration. A generalized estimating equation model statistical analysis, performed to compare postoperative sensitivity, showed that neither the restorative technique, the adhesive strategy nor the presentation mode of the bulk-fill composite affected the overall risk of postoperative sensitivity (4.06 [2.22-6.81]). The use of bulk-fill composite, presented in capsules or syringes, is less time consuming and does not increase the risk or intensity of postoperative sensitivity relative to the traditional incremental technique.