We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

J Adhes Dent 17 (2015), No. 1     24. Feb. 2015
J Adhes Dent 17 (2015), No. 1  (24.02.2015)

Digital Offprint Page 81-88, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a33502, PubMed:25625133


Randomized 3-year Clinical Evaluation of Class I and II Posterior Resin Restorations Placed with a Bulk-fill Resin Composite and a One-step Self-etching Adhesive
van Dijken, Jan WV / Pallesen, Ulla
Purpose: To evaluate the 3-year clinical durability of the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in Class I and Class II restorations.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-eight pairs of Class I and 62 pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 44 male and 42 female patients (mean age 52.4 years). Each patient received at least two extended Class I or Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. In all cavities, a one-step self-etching adhesive (XenoV+) was applied. One of the cavities of each pair was randomly assigned to receive the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface. The occlusal part was completed with an ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono+). In the other cavity, only the resin composite CeramX mono+ was placed in 2 mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 3 years. Caries risk and bruxing habits of the participants were estimated.
Results: No post-operative sensitivity was reported. At the 3-year follow-up, 196 restorations - 74 Class I and 122 Class II - were evaluated. Seven restorations failed (3.6%), 4 SDR-CeramX mono+ and 3 CeramX mono+ only restorations, all of which were Class II. The main reason for failure was tooth fracture, followed by resin composite fracture. The annual failure rate (AFR) for all restorations (Class I and II) was 1.2% for the bulkfilled restorations and 1.0% for the resin composite-only restorations (p > 0.05). For the Class II restorations, the AFR was 2.2% and 1.6%, respectively.
Conclusion: The 4-mm bulk-fill technique showed good clinical effectiveness during the 3-year follow-up.

Keywords: bulk fill, dental restorations, clinical, composite resin, nano, posterior, self-etching adhesive