Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 889–897 | Cite as

One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions

  • Gabriela D. Canali
  • Sergio A. Ignácio
  • Rodrigo N. Rached
  • Evelise M. SouzaEmail author
Original Article
  • 346 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this double-blind, randomized trial was to evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill flowable and a regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

Methods

Twenty-two subjects with at least two NCCLs were enrolled in the study. A total of 89 restorations were performed by a single operator using Filtek Supreme (FS) Ultra Universal or Filtek Bulk (FB) Fill Flowable. A universal adhesive (Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive) was used with a self-etching approach in dentin. The restorations were evaluated by two independent and previously calibrated examiners at baseline (7 days), 6 months and 1 year, according to the USPHS modified criteria. Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze the differences between composites and Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparisons between the baseline and follow-ups (α = 5%).

Results

One restoration was considered clinically unacceptable due to loss of retention after 6 months in the FS group. FS presented statistically high scores for surface roughness when compared to FB after 1 year (p < 0.05), but both were considered clinically acceptable. After 1 year, the frequency of clinically unacceptable rates was 3.3% for anatomical form in the FB group, 1.1% for retention in the FS group, and 2.2% for marginal adaptation in both groups. All restorations, in both groups, presented score 0 over the 1-year period for marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries.

Conclusion

Both composite resins showed acceptable clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1 year.

Clinical relevance

Both bulk-fill flowable and regular nanofilled composites showed good clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1 year.

Keywords

Randomized clinical trial Non-carious cervical lesion Bulk-fill Nanofilled composite Flowable composite 

Notes

Funding

The work was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Mair LH (1992) Wear in dentistry—current terminology. J Dent 20:140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Cohen RE (2005) Toothbrush abrasions and noncarious cervical lesions: evolving concepts. Compend Contin Educ Dent 26:767–768 770–774, 776Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartlett DW, Shah P (2006) A critical review of non-carious cervical (wear) lesions and the role of abfraction, erosion, and abrasion. J Dent Res 85:306–312.  https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910608500405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grippo JO (1991) Abfractions: a new classification of hard tissue lesions of teeth. J Esthet Dent 3:14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1991.tb00799.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grippo JO, Simring M, Coleman TA (2012) Abfraction, abrasion, biocorrosion, and the enigma of noncarious cervical lesions: a 20-year perspective. J Esthet Restor Dent 24:10–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00487.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B (2014) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater 30:1089–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pecie R, Krejci I, García-Godoy F, Bortolotto T (2011) Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: restoration. Am J Dent 24:183–192Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, Hayashi Y (2010) Three-year clinical evaluation of a flowable and a hybrid resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 38:191–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moretto SG, Russo EM, Carvalho RC, De Munck J et al (2013) 3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesion. J Dent 41:675–682.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO (2015) Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 43:1229–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Van Meerbeek B (2015) Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 31:308–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ichim I, Li Q, Loughran J, Swain MV et al (2007) Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions Part I. Modelling of restorative fracture. Dent Mater 23:1553–1561.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ichim I, Schmidlin PR, Kieser JA, Swain MV (2007) Mechanical evaluation of cervical glass-ionomer restorations: 3D finite element study. J Dent 35:28–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilie N, Hickel R (2009) Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 13:427–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0258-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Czasch P, Ilie N (2013) In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 17:227–235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leprince J, Palin WM, Mullier T, Devaux J et al (2010) Investigating filler morphology and mechanical properties of new low-shrinkage resin composite types. J Oral Rehabil 37:364–376.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arslan S, Demirbuga S, Ustun Y, Dincer AN et al (2013) The effect of a new-generation flowable composite resin on microleakage in class V composite restorations as an intermediate layer. J Conserv Dent 16:189–193.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.111311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scotti N, Comba A, Gambino A, Paolino DS et al (2014) Microleakage at enamel and dentin margins with a bulk fills flowable resin. Eur J Dent 8:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.126230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H (2017) One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent 8:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2017) Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation. Euro J Oral Sci 125:303–309.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E (2017) Thirty-six-month clinical comparison of bulk fill and nanofill composite restorations. Oper Dent 42:478–485.  https://doi.org/10.2341/16-220-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith BG, Knight JK (1984) An index for measuring the wear of teeth. Brit Dent J 156:435–438.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Dijken JW (1986) A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller, and hybrid composite resin fillings. A 6-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand 44:357–367.  https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358609094346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karaman E, Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B (2012) Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results. J Adhes Dent 14:485–492.  https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a27794 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    May S, Cieplik F, Hiller KA, Buchalla W, Federlin M, Schmalz G (2017) Flowable composites for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: three-year results. Dent Mater 33:e136–e145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Celik C, Ozgünaltay G, Attar N (2007) Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: two-year results. Oper Dent 32:313–321.  https://doi.org/10.2341/06-93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P et al (2007) Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites. Dent Mater 23:749–754.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cieplik F, Scholz KJ, Tabenski I, May S, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Buchalla W, Federlin M (2017) Flowable composites for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: results after five years. Dent Mater 33:e428–e437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baroudi K, Saleh AM, Silikas N, Watts DC (2007) Shrinkage behaviour of flowable resin-composites related to conversion and filler-fraction. J Dent 35:651–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Atai M, Watts DC, Atai Z (2005) Shrinkage strain-rates of dental resin-monomer and composite systems. Biomaterials 26:5015–5020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ballal NV (2008) Microleakage of composite resin restorations. Aust Dent J 53:369–370.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Szesz A, Parreiras S, Martini E, Reis A, Loguercio A (2017) Effect of flowable composites on the clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 65:11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez IV, Fuentes S, Reis A, Muñoz MA (2017) Effect of dentin roughness on the adhesive performance in non-carious cervical lesions: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. J Dent 69:60–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A et al (2010) Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater 26:1176–1184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigão J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43:1083–1092.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, van Ende A, van Meerbeek B, de Munck J (2012) Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 40:475–484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suzuki T, Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A, Endo H, Erickson RL, Latta MA, Miyazaki M (2016) Influence of etching mode on enamel bond durability of universal adhesive systems. Oper Dent 41:520–530.  https://doi.org/10.2341/15-347-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, de Munck J, van Meerbeek B (2004) Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 83:454–458.  https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perdigão J, Muñoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez IV, Staichak R, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2014) Immediate adhesive properties to dentin and enamel of a universal adhesive associated with a hydrophobic resin coat. Oper Dent 39:489–499.  https://doi.org/10.2341/13-203-LR CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA (2009) The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater 25:1459–1467.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, Osaka A, Meerbeek BV (2012) Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 91:376–381.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512437375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y, Snauwaert J et al (2000) Evidence of chemical bonding at biomaterial-hard tissue interface. J Dent Res 79:709–714.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345000790020301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Litonjua LA, Cabanilla LL, Abbott LJ (2012) Plaque formation and marginal gingivitis associated with restorative materials. Compend Contin Educ Dent 33:e6–e10Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ferracane JL (2006) Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22:211–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yu H, Wegehaupt FJ, Wiegand A, Roos M, Attin T, Buchalla W (2009) Erosion and abrasion of tooth-colored restorative materials and human enamel. J Dent 37:913–922.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F et al (2018) The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 68:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Life SciencesPontifical Catholic University of ParanaCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations