Clinical performance of different bulk-fill composite resin systems in class II cavities: A 2-year randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composite systems with different viscosities in class II cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 class II restorations were performed with a single operator in 50 patients using four different bulk-fill resin composite materials: Filtek™ Bulk Fill, Heated Filtek™ Bulk Fill, G-ænial™ BULK Injectable, and SonicFill3. A double-blinded randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of the four bulk-fill composite resins using modified FDI criteria. Data were analyzed descriptively. Level of significance was set at 0.05. Differences between groups were tested using Wilcoxon-signed-rank and Mann-Whitney-U test as nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (p < 0.05). Eighty restorations were available for evaluation, with a survival function of 100%. No statistically significant differences were observed between the four groups regarding assessing esthetic, functional, and biological properties during different follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years of clinical follow-up, the bulk-fill composite systems with different viscosities seem to be esthetically, functionally, and biologically acceptable, with a promising clinical performance in class II cavities.

Indirect Resin Composite Inlays Cemented with a Self-adhesive, Self-etch or a Conventional Resin Cement Luting Agent: A 5 Years Prospective Clinical Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the 5-years clinical performance of indirect resin composite inlays luted with three different resin cement strategies in MOD Class II restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted following CONSORT guidelines. Forty patients with three large cavities indicated for indirect MOD Class II restorations were enrolled in the current study. Then, 120 indirect resin composite inlay restorations (SR Nexco) were placed and luted with three different resin cement strategies (n=40); an etch-and-rinse (Variolink N), self-etch (Panavia F2.0) and self-adhesive (RelyX Unicem). These restorations were evaluated to the periods of 1 week (baseline), 1, 3 and 5 years using modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed with Wilcoxon and Friedman tests with level of significance set at 0.05. RESULTS: The outcome of the clinical trial showed that, there was neither loss of restorations nor recurrent caries after 5 years for all luting cements groups. Both self-etch Panavia F2.0 and self-adhesive RelyX Unicem resin cements exhibited significant differences between the evaluation periods regarding to marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation (p=0.03). At baseline, only 8 cases of etch-and-rinse (Variolink N) resin cement group exhibited post-operative sensitivity which were relieved after short time (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: All the three resin cement strategies tested, showed acceptable clinical performance after 5-years recall period. In time, etch-and-rinse resin cement group showed better clinical performance regarding marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation at 5-years recall period. Clinical Relevance statement:In vitro and in vivo studies reveal contradictory evidence of the clinical performance of indirect resin composite inlays luted with different resin cement strategies. Thus, this study revealed that etch-and-rinse resin cement still has the best prognosis for adhesive luting of indirect resin composite inlays.

The effect of preheating resin composites on surface hardness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of preheating on the hardness of nanofilled, nanoceramic, nanohybrid, and microhybrid resin composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of papers on MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost was performed. Only in vitro studies were included. Non-English studies, case reports, clinical trials, and review articles were excluded. A meta-analysis of the reviewed studies was conducted to quantify differences in the microhardness of the Z250 microhybrid resin composite using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. RESULTS: Only 13 studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences between the non-preheated and preheated modes for both the top and bottom surfaces of the specimens (p < 0.05). The microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the top surface in the preheated mode (78.1 ± 2.9) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (67.4 ± 4.0; p < 0.001). Moreover, the microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the bottom surface in the preheated mode (71.8 ± 3.8) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (57.5 ± 5.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the results reported in the reviewed studies showed great variability, sufficient scientific evidence was found to support the hypothesis that preheating can improve the hardness of resin composites.