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.

Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

This systematic review was aimed to evaluate occurrence of secondary caries and marginal adaptation in ion-releasing materials versus resin composite. Electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Open Grey databases with no date or language restrictions until May 21st, 2021, was conducted. Randomized clinical trials that compared ion-releasing restorations versus resin composite were included. For quantitative analysis, a random-effects meta-analysis with risk difference as an effect measure and a 95% confidence interval was used. Quality of evidence was assessed using The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochran Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. The inclusion criteria were met by 22 studies, and 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three follow-up periods (1 year, 18 months-2 years, and 3 years) were evaluated. The overall quality of evidence for secondary caries and marginal adaptation outcomes was low. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in both outcomes between ion-releasing materials and resin composite. The occurrence of secondary caries was not dependent on the nature of the restorative material. It is more likely a complex process that involves the same risk factors as primary carious lesions.

Fracture resistance of CAD/CAM occlusal veneers: A systematic review of laboratory studies.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize scientific evidence that evaluates in vitro fracture and fatigue strength of occlusal veneers in different thicknesses, CAD/CAM materials, and under different aging methodologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of 3 English databases (The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed), ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost) was conducted. Laboratory studies published between September 2009 and October 2019 that evaluated fracture or fatigue strength of CAD/CAM occlusal veneers and used human teeth were selected. The included studies were individually evaluated for the risk of bias following a predetermined criterion. The outcomes assessed included the types of the restorative material, the thickness of the veneers, and aging methods. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies (86%) evaluated the fracture strength of occlusal veneers. Two studies evaluated fatigue resistance. There was a significant relationship between the choice of materials and fracture strength. Polymeric materials performed better in fatigue testing in comparison to ceramics. Lithium silicate-based glass ceramics showed more favorable outcomes in a thickness of 0.7-1.0 mm. Fracture resistance values in all the included studies exceeded maximum bite forces in the posterior region. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this systematic review suggest that occlusal veneers can withstand bite forces in the posterior region, whereas the measurement of thickness should be standardized in order to have a fair comparison. Further research needs to be conducted to evaluate the longevity of this type of restorations clinically.