-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.
Topics: Bias; Child; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34387873
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2023High-level evidence concerning the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth by means of direct composite resin or indirect restorations is lacking. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
High-level evidence concerning the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth by means of direct composite resin or indirect restorations is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the current literature on the direct and indirect restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were screened. Risk of bias was assessed by using the ROB2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for prospective and retrospective clinical studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies comparing direct composite resin and indirect restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth were included. Outcomes were tooth and restoration survival. A meta-analysis was conducted for tooth retention and restorative success.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included (2 RCTs, 3 prospective, and 17 retrospective). Over the short term (2.5 to 3 years), low-quality evidence suggested no difference in tooth survival. For the prospective and retrospective clinical trials, the overall risk of bias was serious to critical from the risk of confounding because of a difference in restorative indication: Direct restorations were fabricated when one marginal ridge remained or when tooth prognosis was unfavorable. For short-term restorative success, low-quality evidence suggested no difference between the direct and indirect restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
For the short term (2.5 to 3 years), low-quality evidence suggests no difference in tooth survival or restoration quality. To assess the influence of the type of restoration on the survival and restorative success of endodontically treated posterior teeth, clinical trials that control for the amount of coronal tooth tissue and other baseline characteristics are needed.
Topics: Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Molar; Retrospective Studies; Dental Restoration Failure; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34980474
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.009 -
Dental Materials Journal Mar 2018The resin-coating technique is one of the successful bonding techniques used for the indirect restorations. The dentin surfaces exposed after cavity preparation are... (Review)
Review
The resin-coating technique is one of the successful bonding techniques used for the indirect restorations. The dentin surfaces exposed after cavity preparation are coated with a thin film of a coating material or a dentin bonding system combined with a flowable composite resin. Resin coating can minimize pulp irritation and improve the bond strength between a resin cement and tooth structures. The technique can also be applied to endodontically treated teeth, resulting in prevention of coronal leakage of the restorations. Application of a resin coating to root surface provides the additional benefit of preventing root caries in elderly patients. Therefore, the coating materials have the potential to reinforce sound tooth ("Super Tooth" formation), leading to preservation of maximum tooth structures.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cavity Lining; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans
PubMed: 29279548
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-253 -
Brazilian Oral Research Aug 2017Composites resins have become the first choice for direct anterior and posterior restorations. The great popularity is related to their esthetic appearance and reduced... (Review)
Review
Composites resins have become the first choice for direct anterior and posterior restorations. The great popularity is related to their esthetic appearance and reduced need of sound tissue removal as compared with former treatments. Several studies have demonstrated that composite restorations may last long in clinical service. In this review we discuss the factors playing a role on the long-term longevity. Composite restorations have demonstrated a good clinical performance with annual failure rates varying from 1% to 3% in posterior teeth and 1% to 5% in anterior teeth. Factors related to the patients such as caries risk and occlusal stress risk, in addition to socioeconomic factors, may affect the survival significantly. Characteristics of the clinical operators, particularly their decision making when it comes to observing or approaching an existing restoration, are decisive for longevity. Cavity features such as the number of restored walls, composite volume, and presence of endodontic treatment are of major importance and may dictate the service time of the restorative approach. The choice of restorative composite seems to have a minor effect on longevity provided that appropriate technical procedures are used. The main reasons for failure in posterior teeth are secondary caries and fracture (restoration or tooth/restoration), while in anterior teeth esthetic concerns are the main reasons leading to restoration failures. Composite resin restorations can be considered a reliable treatment as long as both the professional and the patient are aware of the factors involved in restoration failures.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Tooth Fractures
PubMed: 28902236
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0056 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Mar 2022Bulk-fill resin composites are a special group of restorative materials designed to reduce chair time needed to insert a direct composite restoration. However, other...
OBJECTIVE
Bulk-fill resin composites are a special group of restorative materials designed to reduce chair time needed to insert a direct composite restoration. However, other factors determine the clinical success of a restorative material. Clinically the major reasons for failure of direct restorations are secondary caries and fracture of the restoration or the tooth itself. In the long-term composite resin restorations in posterior teeth may be prone to wear. As bulk-fill materials have their own composition that will determine their mechanical properties, the wear resistance may be affected as well. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the wear of bulk-fill composites in comparison with a conventional hybrid composite. The null hypothesis was that there are no differences between the four bulk-fill materials and one traditional highly filled nanohybrid composite for posterior use when subjected to a two-body wear rate test and hardness measurement.
METHODS
Four bulk-fill composites SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR), X-tra base (XBA), FiltekBulk Fill (FUP), Dual-Curing Bulk Composite (FBFL) and conventional nanohybrid resin composite Grandio (GDO) subjected to a two-body wear test against a stainless steel (SS) antagonist wheel. Scanning Electron Microscopy analysis was performed to detect the surface alterations. Microhardness of all samples was tested (n = 5) with a Vickers diamond indenter (5 indentations in each specimen). One-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (P < 0.01) were used to analyze differences in wear values. The hardness data were submitted to one-way ANOVA test, followed by the Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05). T-test was applied to compare wear rate in time interval between one day and one month.
RESULTS
The highest wear rate values were recorded for SDR and the lowest wear rate values were for GDO. Hardness was the highest for GDO and the lowest for FBFL.
SIGNIFICANCE
The bulk-fill composites have a higher wear rate and lower hardness than the conventional nanohybrid composite, making them less suitable for stress-bearing restorations.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Hardness; Materials Testing
PubMed: 34972580
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.138 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Jun 2020Bulk-fill composite resin are simple to operate, and they reduce polymerization shrinkage and microleakage compare to traditional resin-based composites. However, their... (Review)
Review
Bulk-fill composite resin are simple to operate, and they reduce polymerization shrinkage and microleakage compare to traditional resin-based composites. However, their clinical application could be affected by numerous factors, such as the material itself, light curing, placement techniques, storage condition, and preheating. This review aimed to summarize the definitions, classifications, indications, clinical properties, and influencing factors of the clinical application of bulk-fill resin-based composites and discuss the ways to improve their clinical effectiveness.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Materials Testing; Polymerization; Surface Properties
PubMed: 32573127
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2020.03.001 -
Journal of Applied Oral Science :... 2019Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.
OBJECTIVES
Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations.
METHODOLOGY
In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.
RESULTS
At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.
Topics: Adult; Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Female; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Reproducibility of Results; Sex Distribution; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31596369
DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678 -
BMC Oral Health Oct 2022This non-inferiority randomised clinical trial aimed to evaluate the survival of direct bulk fill composite resin restorations in primary molars using different methods... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
This non-inferiority randomised clinical trial aimed to evaluate the survival of direct bulk fill composite resin restorations in primary molars using different methods of moisture control: rubber dam isolation (RDI-local anaesthesia and rubber dam) and cotton roll isolation (CRI-cotton roll and saliva ejector). Secondary outcomes included baseline and 2-year incremental cost, self-reported child's pain scores and patient behaviour during the restorative procedure.
METHODS
A total of 174 molars (93 children) with dentine caries lesions were randomly allocated to study groups (RDI or CRI) and restored with bulk fill composite resin by trained operators. Two blinded examiners assessed the restorations for up to 24 months. Wong-baker faces and Frankl's behaviour rating scales were used for accessing the child's pain and behaviour, respectively. The primary outcome (restoration survival) was analysed using the two-sample non-inferiority test for survival data using Cox Regression (non-inferiority/alternative hypothesis HR > 0.85; CI = 90%). Bootstrap Linear regression was used for cost analysis and logistic regression for pain and behaviour analysis (α = 5%).
RESULTS
After 2-years, 157 restorations were evaluated (drop-out = 9.7%). The survival rate was RDI = 60.4% and CRI = 54.3%. The non-inferiority hypothesis was accepted by the Cox Regression analysis (HR = 1.33; 90% CI 0.88-1.99; p = 0.036). RDI was 53% more expensive when compared to the CRI group. No differences were found between the groups regarding pain (p = 0.073) and behaviour (p = 0.788).
CONCLUSION
Cotton roll isolation proved to be non-inferior when compared to rubber dam for composite restorations longevity in primary molars. Furthermore, the latest presented the disadvantage of higher cost and longer procedure time. Clinical Significance The moisture control method does not influence the longevity of composite restorations in primary molars. Cotton roll isolation proved to be non-inferior to rubber dam isolation and is a viable option for restoring primary molars. Clinical trial registration registered NCT03733522 on 07/11/2018. The present trial was nested within another clinical trial, the CARies DEtection in Children (CARDEC-03-NCT03520309).
Topics: Child; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Molar; Pain; Rubber Dams
PubMed: 36217147
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02449-y -
Swiss Dental Journal 2016Bulk-fill resin composites represent an innovative class of dental composite materials, developed to simplify and expedite the restoration process. They can be...
Bulk-fill resin composites represent an innovative class of dental composite materials, developed to simplify and expedite the restoration process. They can be adequately photopolymerized up to 45mm composite thickness and therefore permit a more economical restorative approach as compared to conventional resin composites. The current paper summarizes the most important facts on bulk-fill composite materials and provides recommendations for the successful use of these materials in daily practice based on upto-date in vitro and in vivo research.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; Switzerland
PubMed: 27622656
DOI: No ID Found -
Brazilian Dental Journal 2018This study determined the reduction threshold in thickness of the dentin shade composite necessary to result in perceptible and acceptable color changes on simulated...
This study determined the reduction threshold in thickness of the dentin shade composite necessary to result in perceptible and acceptable color changes on simulated restorations. Three composite systems (Charisma Diamond, IPS Empress Direct, and Filtek Z350 XT) were evaluated using cylinder-shaped specimens built-up with dentin and enamel shades. The opacity of the composites was assessed using 1.0 mm thick specimens over black and white backgrounds. A baseline color was established for each system by combining 1.0 mm thick enamel shade with 3.0 mm of dentin shade cylinders over a dark background (n = 9). Then, the color changes (∆E00) caused by sequential 0.1 mm reductions on dentin shade cylinders were calculated. Opacity changes on dentin shade cylinders and combined enamel-dentin pair cylinders were also assessed after each thickness reduction. Polynomial regression was performed with averages of ∆E00 as a function of thickness of dentin shade cylinders; and acceptability (∆E = 1.77) and perceptibility (∆E = 0.81) thresholds were calculated. Linear regressions were also performed for ∆E00 as function of opacity of dentin shade cylinders and combined enamel-dentin pair of cylinders. Except for Charisma, enamel shades presented the lowest opacity than dentin one. Perceptible and acceptable color changes were observed for dentin shade cylinders thinner than 2.0-2.4 mm and 1.1-1.4 mm, respectively, were used. No difference among the composite systems was observed. In conclusion, reductions on dentin shade composite lower than 0.6-mm did not yield perceptible color changes, and clinically significant color changes only were observed within reductions higher than 1.6-mm.
Topics: Aluminum Silicates; Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Dentin; Esthetics, Dental; In Vitro Techniques; Materials Testing; Optical Phenomena; Surface Properties
PubMed: 30517446
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201802394