Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Composite resins are still outperformed by amalgams in the clinical practice with secondary caries and fractures being their most common failures. A material that suffers less polymerization shrinkage might improve the clinical performance of composite resins. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a low-shrink silorane-based composite resin (Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in comparison with a methacrylate-based composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidates in need of Class II composite resin restorations participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Those were 25 female and six male subjects with average age of 44.3 ± 12.7 years. Participants received 82 restorations, being 54 in premolars and 28 in molars. Procedures, which included the restoration of primary caries lesions or replacement of failing restorations, were done using modified preparations with no bevels or additional retention. Restorations were placed using Filtek LS (and dedicated self-etch adhesive) or Tetric EvoCeram (with AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent), following manufacturers' instructions. Incremental placement technique was applied and the restorations were immediately finished. Follow-up evaluations occurred at six, 12, 24, and 36 months and were done using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The recall rate at 36 months was 89%. All interaction terms were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Filtek LS performs as well as Tetric EvoCeram performs in the clinical setting at 36 months. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The silorane-based composite resin Filtek LS and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resin Tetric EvoCeram performed similarly well in posterior restorations over at least 36 months of clinical service.

An eight-year clinical evaluation of filled and unfilled one-bottle dental adhesives.

BACKGROUND: The strategies for accomplishing resin adhesion to dentin involve surface conditioning, priming and bonding. One-bottle adhesives combine the priming and bonding functions in a single solution. In this study, the authors compared the eight-year clinical performance of two one-bottle adhesives made by different manufacturers. METHODS: The authors placed a total of 99 Class V restorations using either a filled, ethanol-based adhesive (OptiBond Solo [OS], SDS Kerr, Orange, Calif.) or an unfilled, acetone-based adhesive (Prime & Bond 2.1 [PB] Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.) and a hybrid resin-based composite in 33 subjects with noncarious cervical lesions. The authors did not bevel the enamel margins and used no mechanical retention. They evaluated the restorations at baseline and for as long as eight years after placement using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. They analyzed differences between groups using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: The authors examined 56 restorations after eight years and found retention rates of 69 percent for OS and 59 percent for PB. These rates did not differ statistically (P = .449) and were not significantly affected by subject or lesion characteristics. The authors noted marginal discoloration on 55 percent of the retained OS restorations and on 31 percent of the retained PB restorations, but they detected no secondary caries around any restoration. They noted poor anatomical form and poor marginal adaptation in 15 percent and 40 percent of the retained OS restorations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of both adhesives was good during this eight-year clinical trial. The filled, ethanol-based adhesive OS demonstrated slightly better bond durability than did the unfilled, acetone-based adhesive PB, but the difference between the two materials was not statistically significant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Despite a high incidence of marginal discoloration, the one-bottle adhesives evaluated in this study provided good clinical retention of Class V restorations without mechanical retention. When the materials are used properly, restorations are retained at an acceptable rate through at least eight years of clinical service.

Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis.

This randomized clinical trial compared the performance of an all-in-one adhesive (iBond) applied in sclerotic and non-sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions with that of a three-step etch-prime-bond adhesive (Gluma Solid Bond, SB). One-hundred and five lesions were randomly assigned to four groups according to adhesive, sclerosis scale and technique: 1) SB applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 (n=26); 2) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 (n=28); 3) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 (n=25) and 4) iBond applied with prior acid-etching to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 (n=26). A microfilled composite (Durafill VS) was used as the restorative material. The restorations were evaluated for retention, color match, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, cavosurface margin discoloration, secondary caries, pre- and post-operative sensitivity, surface texture and fracture at insertion (baseline), 6, 18 months and at 3 years using modified USPHS evaluation criteria (Alfa=excellent; Bravo=clinically acceptable; Charlie=clinically unacceptable). There was a high percentage of Bravo scores for marginal adaptation (4%-32%) and marginal discoloration (18%-60%) in Groups 2, 3 and 4, but all groups had <5% Charlie scores at 6 months and <10% Charlie scores at 18 months for retention and marginal discoloration, respectively. However, it should be noted that 13% of the restorations in Group 4 were not retained at three years.

36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive with that of a popular etch-and-rinse adhesive in Class I posterior composite restorations. METHODS: 60 Class I resin composite restorations (30 per group) were placed in matched pairs using either the self-etch adhesive Xeno III and the microhybrid resin composite Esthet-X or the etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBond Solo Plus and Point 4 microhybrid resin composite. Subjects were interviewed via telephone 1 week after restoration placement to assess early post-operative sensitivity. In addition, the restorations were evaluated clinically for post-operative sensitivity, marginal quality, wear, and other characteristics immediately after placement and at 6, 12, 18, and 36 months from baseline. RESULTS: During the first week after placement, subjects reported that 23% of restorations in each group had post-operative sensitivity. Sensitivity decreased greatly with time, and differences between the two groups were never statistically significant. Marginal integrity and discoloration were similar for each group at each recall evaluation. Wear of both resin composites increased over time, but mean wear remained at less than 100 microm for each resin composite at 3 years.

Six-year clinical performance of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 6-year clinical performance of Xeno IV, Xeno III, and XP Bond adhesives in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). METHODS: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial where 39 participants met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were enrolled. Lesions restored were notch-shaped NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, NCCLs were roughened. No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturer's instructions and the NCCLs were restored with composite resin (TPH(3)). Restorations were finished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, and secondary caries using modified USPHS criteria. Descriptive statistics were performed. Logistic regression models were performed for each outcome separately with compound symmetry correlation structure where teeth were clustered by participants. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.2. RESULTS: The 6-year recall rate was 77.5% of the restorations (76.9% of the participants). No statistical differences were found between adhesives for retention, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. Restorations failed by loss of retention (16.7%, 27.6%, and 11.8% of Xeno IV, Xeno III, and XP Bond restorations, respectively) and marginal discoloration (7.4% of Xeno IV restorations). For every unit increase in restoration volume it was 1.31 (95%C.I. 1.05, 1.63, P=0.01) times more likely that the restoration retention would be maintained. SIGNIFICANCE: The tested adhesive systems presented similar clinical performance after six years of service, with annual failure rates of 2.8%, 4.6%, and 2.0% for Xeno IV, Xeno III, and XP Bond, respectively.

Microleakage of Class V composites using different placement and curing techniques: an in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate microleakage at enamel and dentin margins of two composite resins, using bulk and incremental placement techniques, "rebonding", and facial and lingual curing methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred standardized Class V cavity preparations were made on the facial surface of extracted human premolars and were randomly assigned to 10 groups. Single Bond was used as the dentin/enamel adhesive. A heavily filled composite resin, Z250, and a microfill, Silux Plus, were inserted and polymerized using five different techniques: (1) incremental placement and facial curing; (2) incremental placement, facial curing and rebonding; (3) bulk placement and facial curing; (4) bulk placement, facial curing and rebonding; (5) incremental placement and lingual and facial curing. After the restorations were finished and polished, the margins of those in the rebonded groups were etched, rinsed, and dried. The adhesive resin, Single Bond, was applied at the composite resin-tooth interface and light-cured. All the specimens were thermocycled, stained with 1% methylene blue, sectioned, and evaluated for leakage (0-4 scale) by two examiners. RESULTS: Almost no leakage occurred at enamel margins. At the cementum margins, differences in microleakage related to restorative material or technique were not statistically significant. However, leakage at the cementum margins was significantly greater than at the enamel margins for both composite resin materials.

Wear of a dental composite in an artificial oral environment: A clinical correlation.

The study objective was to correlate wear between an in vitro method for simulating wear and in vivo wear of a posterior dental composite. Ten subjects (12 restorations) were selected from a five-year clinical study (University of North Carolina, School of Dentistry) that assessed wear of SureFil composite (Caulk, Dentsply). Subject casts were digitized and changes in volume and mean depth with time were calculated from the 3D digital models for contact and contact-free wear. SureFil composite disks were mounted in the University of Minnesota's Artificial Oral Environment, opposed by natural enamel, subjected to mandibular-like movements for 150 K, 300 K, 600 K, 1.2 M, and 1.5 M cycles, and loaded with peak forces of 13 N (n = 7) or 30 N (n = 3). Wear rates were calculated as the slope of the linear regressions fitting the wear data. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVAs and post hoc t-tests where appropriate (p = 0.05). Clinical restorations included contact wear on seven restorations and contact-free wear on all restorations. Contact-free wear was less than contact wear (p < 0.01). SureFil clinical wear rates were 0.012 mm/year (mean depth) and 0.023 mm(3)/year (volume). Clinical restorations expanded slightly during the first year. Using a conversion rate of one year equals 3 × 10(5) cycles, there were no significant differences between the clinical and simulated data except depths at Year 5 and 13 N volume at Year 4. The 30 N simulation reproduced the clinical data if contact-free wear was taken into account. Good agreement between simulated and clinical wear implies that in vitro simulation can screen new composite formulations.

A 12-year clinical evaluation of a three-step dentin adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to evaluate the clinical performance of a dual-cured, three-step dentin adhesive (OptiBond Dual Cure, Kerr, a subsidiary of Sybron Dental Specialties, Orange, Calif.; no longer on the market) at 12 years. METHODS: The authors restored 100 noncarious cervical lesions without use of macromechanical retention or enamel bevels. In one-half of the lesions (group A), the authors etched only the enamel; in the other half (group B), they etched both enamel and dentin. After etching, they applied a light-cured primer and dual-cured adhesive to enamel and dentin in both groups. They restored the preparations with a resin-based composite. They performed direct evaluations by using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria at insertion (baseline) and at one year and 12 years after insertion. RESULTS: The 12-year retention rates were 93 percent in group A and 84 percent in group B, for an overall retention rate of 89 percent. Except for marginal discoloration in both groups and retention in group B, the restorations in both groups had Alfa ratings of 88 percent or greater in all of the direct clinical evaluation categories. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-year clinical performance, including retention rate, of a dual-cured dental adhesive was excellent and was not affected by dentin acid-etching. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This clinical study provides additional evidence for the long-term durability of a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions.

Effects of duration of whitening strip treatment on tooth color: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strip used twice daily over an extended, 6-week period. METHODS: After informed consent, 40 eligible adults were randomly assigned to 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strips (Crest Whitestrips, The Procter & Gamble Company, USA) or placebo strips without peroxide. Treatment was twice daily for 30min, and response was evaluated biweekly after initial (Week 2) and extended (Weeks 4 and 6) use. Tooth color was measured under standardized lighting conditions using digital image analysis, and safety was assessed from clinical examination and interview. Whitening was measured using data derived from digital images taken at baseline compared to post-treatment, with outcomes reported using the CIELAB color notation system. Analysis of variance and covariance were used to assess initial response, and repeated measures regression analysis was used to model color change during sustained use. RESULTS: Forty subjects (25-58 years old) started the study. At baseline, L* ranged from 68.0 to 76.8, a* ranged from 8.0 to 11.8, and b* ranged from 16.4 to 23.1. Groups differed significantly (p<0.001) on all color parameters at Week 2 and thereafter, favoring the 6% hydrogen peroxide strips. Week 2 adjusted means+/-SE were -2.1+/-0.2 for Deltab* and 1.9+/-0.2 for DeltaL* for the peroxide group compared to -0.3+/-0.2 for Deltab* and 0.4+/-0.2 for the placebo group. With sustained use (Weeks 2-6), the slope for the peroxide strip was estimated as -0.3 for Deltab* and +0.2 for DeltaL* per week, with both slopes differing significantly from zero (p<0.0001), while slopes for the placebo strip were not significant (p=0.22) and nearly zero. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events confined to symptoms only. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily use of 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strips resulted in teeth becoming lighter and less yellow versus baseline and placebo during initial 2-week use, with no evidence of placebo response during sustained (Weeks 2-6) use.