Clinical performance of two ion-releasing bulk-fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two-year evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial evaluated and compared the 2-year clinical performance of two ion-releasing bulk-fill composites (Cention N and Surefil One) with that of a conventional bulk-fill resin composite (Powerfil) in Class I and II cavities. METHODS: Thirty-two patients, each with 3 Class I and/or Class II cavities under occlusion, were enrolled in this trial. A total of 96 restorations were placed, 32 for each material, as follows: a self-adhesive composite; Surefil-one, alkasite; Cention N, and a bulk-fill resin composite; Powerfil. The restorations were placed by a single operator. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (1-week), 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years by two independent examiners using the FDI criteria. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman Tests. Multiple comparisons between groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon-rank tests. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with a total of 81 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 2-years with 84.35% recall rates. Clinical success rates were 100%, 100%, and 96.3% for Powerfil, Surefil-one, and Cention N, respectively. Cention N showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) decreased marginal integrity in comparison with resin composite at the 2-year evaluation. No recurrent decay was detected in any restoration. CONCLUSIONS: Both ion-releasing bulk-fill composites provided acceptable clinical performance similar to bulk-fill composite in Class I and II restorations over a 2-year period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this trial suggests that there is a promising evidence supporting the use of ion-releasing composites.

Inhibition of Caries around Restoration by Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Optical Coherence Tomography and Micro-Computed Tomography Evaluation.

The objective of this study was firstly to assess the demineralization inhibitory effect of ion-releasing restorations in enamel adjacent to restoration using a biofilm caries model and secondly to compare the effect to that in a chemical caries model. Fifty-six bovine incisors were filled with either Surefil one (SuO), Cention N (CN) (both ion-releasing materials), Ketac-Molar (GIC) or Powerfill resin composite (RC). The restored teeth were then randomly divided into 2 groups according to the used caries model (biofilm or chemical caries model). The micro-computed tomography (MicroCt) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) outcome measures used to evaluate demineralization inhibition effects were lesion depth, LD and increase in OCT integrated reflectivity, ΔIR, at five different depths. It was observed that all outcome measures of CN were statistically the same as those of GIC and conversely with those of RC. This was also the case for SuO except for LD, which was statistically the same as RC. When comparing the two caries models, LD of the biofilm model was statistically deeper (p < 0.05) than the chemical model for all four materials. In conclusion, CN and SuO have similar demineralization inhibitory effects as GIC, and the biofilm caries model is more discriminatory in differentiating demineralization inhibitory effects of ion-releasing restorative material.