5-year clinical performance of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A double-blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this double-blind, and randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed with the incremental filling technique [IF] or the bulk-fill technique [BF]. Two different adhesive systems were used: etch-&-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE). METHODS: Posterior dental teeth of 72 participants (n = 236), with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm, were randomly divided into four groups. Restorations were applied with either Tetric N-Bond or Tetric N-Bond SE. The composite resin Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill was placed either with IF or BF. Restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at baseline and after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon Signed rank test (a=0.05). RESULTS: Two hundred and four restorations were evaluated after 5 years. Eleven restorations were considered 'failed', ten due to fracture (4 IF and 6 BF) and one due to secondary caries (IF). The annual failure rate was 1.2% for BF and 1% for IF (p = 0.35). When comparing BF and IF, no significant differences were found for any of the parameters evaluated (p > 0.05). Regarding the adhesive systems, 44 and 51 restorations showed minor problems in terms of marginal adaptation and staining, with significantly more marginal discoloration when the self-etch adhesive was used (p = 0.002). SIGNIFICANCE: The bulk-fill restorative technique showed good clinical behavior compared to the incremental filling technique, especially when using an etch-&-rinse adhesive, after 5 years of clinical evaluation.

Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in restorations with self-adhesive resin: a randomized split-mouth design controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the postoperative sensitivity of restorations with self-adhesive resin composite (SAC) (Vertise Flow (VER)/Kerr) compared with conventional resin composite with self-etching adhesive (Filtek Z250 (Z250)/3M ESPE; Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB)/Kuraray). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, controlled, double-blind, split-mouth, two-arm clinical trial was conducted. Twenty-seven volunteers with third molars indicated for extraction received two deep class I restorations, one with each material. Postoperative sensitivity was measured at 24 h and 15 or 30 days after the restorative procedures using a visual analog scale (VAS). When present, information on the characteristics of the pain was also collected. The data were submitted to the McNemar test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Regardless of the time intervals, the postoperative sensitivity was observed in 52% and 48% of the CSEB and VERT groups, respectively (p = 1.000). When the evaluation periods were analyzed, the 15-day evaluation presented the highest occurrence of pain, but of mild intensity, in both groups. All patients with sensitivity reported that the pain was localized and of short duration. CONCLUSION: Self-adhesive resin composite Vertise Flow and conventional resin composite with a self-etching bonding agent promoted similar response regarding postoperative sensitivity in deep class I cavities. When postoperative sensitivity was present, mild pain was observed, especially after 15 days of the restorative procedure, which decreased over time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Postoperative sensitivity to self-adhesive resin composite (SAC) restorations in deep cavities was comparable with that of conventional restorations with a self-etching bonding agent.

Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to answer the following PICO question: "Is the risk of postoperative sensitivity (POS), retention rates and marginal discoloration of composite restorations [CR] bonded with self-etch (SE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of adults equals to etch-and-rinse (ER) adhesives?". METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in May 2016 in the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO and Cochrane Library and SIGLE, abstracts of IADR, unpublished and ongoing trials registries, dissertations and theses without restrictions. Only randomized clinical trials that compared composite resin restorations placed with self-etch and etch-and-rinse in NCCLs were included. After removal of duplicates and non-eligible articles, 50 articles from 42 studies (follow-ups of the same study were merged) remained for synthesis of the risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of bias tool). RESULTS: Thirteen studies were at "high" risk of bias, yielding 29 studies for meta-analysis. No difference on the POS after restoration placement (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.34) as well as in the retention rates for all follow-up periods was observed. The etch-and-rinse approach produced less marginal discoloration at 18 months to 2 years (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.90) and at 4 to 5 years (RR 1.81; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.55) (p<0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: The adhesive strategy did not influence the POS and the retention rates of composite resin in NCCLs in any of the follow-up periods; but less marginal discoloration was found in etch-and-rinse adhesives. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Composite resin restorations placed with self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives produce restoration with the similar clinical service and POS, however using etch-and-rinse adhesives one can reduce marginal discoloration. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015019533.