The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical performance of restorations with ground and unground enamel for diastema closure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four patients attended and received two to ten composite build-ups for diastema closure. The restorations were performed separately by grinding and not grinding the enamel on the proximal surfaces on symmetric teeth. A nanofill direct composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) for restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls. RESULTS: The cumulative success rate of direct composite build-up with ground and unground enamel was 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Six restorations with unground enamel failed due to fracture. No significant difference was found between the restorations with ground enamel and unground enamel with regard to the evaluation criteria. CONCLUSION: The 5-year success rates of restorations with ground and unground enamel were excellent. The success rate of restorations with ground enamel was higher than that of restorations with unground enamel. Fracture was the reason for failure in the restorations with unground enamel.

Short-Term Comparison of Clinical Performance of Universal Adhesives with Self-Etch Mode in NCCL Restorations.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical performance of universal adhesives with self-etch mode regarding their functional monomer and HEMA contents. METHODS: The study involved 27 patients (108 restorations) aged between 34 and 69 (mean age: 53.8). Each restoration contained one of four different universal adhesives applied in self-etch mode: G-Premio Bond (HEMA-free, MDP and 4-MET containing), Xeno Select (HEMA and MDP-free), Tetric-n-Bond Universal (HEMA and MDP-containing) and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (HEMA, MDP and amide monomers containing). The restorations were evaluated according to the FDI criteria at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The data were statistically analyzed using Friedman's and Kruskal-Wallis tests for significance in each pair (p⟨0.05). RESULTS: After 12 months, one restoration was lost in each of the G-Premio Bond and Clearfil Bond Quick groups. The success rate was 96.3% for both adhesives and 100% for Xeno Select and Tetric-n-Bond adhesives. There was no statistically significant difference between the four dentin adhesive groups among all the evaluation periods regarding any evaluation criteria. However, four universal adhesives showed clinically acceptable marginal discoloration and marginal deterioration in a few restorations. CONCLUSION: Monomer contents of universal adhesives with self-etch mode had no significant effect on the success of restorations.

Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta.

The objective of this study was to analyze and assess the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using a nanohybrid and a nanofill composite material for posterior teeth in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI). This study involved 15 patients between the ages of 14 and 30 years suffering from amelogenesis imperfecta (AI). During the study, the patients received direct composite restorations using either the Clearfil Majesty ES-2 (Kuraray Medical Inc, Tokyo, Japan) and Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray) or Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) and Single Bond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE). The evaluations of the restorations were conducted per the modified USPHS criteria at the time of baseline as well as during the first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year follow-up sessions. After four years, it was observed that the cumulative success rate of direct posterior restorations was 98.1% for Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and 92.2% for Filtek Ultimate. During the study one Clearfil Majesty ES-2 restoration and four Filtek Ultimate restorations failed. There was a significant difference between Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and Filtek Ultimate in the color match in posterior restorations after three and four years. The causes of failure included marginal discoloration and caries, as well as fracture of the restoration. Hence, it can be stated that the use of nanohybrid or nanofill composites in posterior direct restorations in patients with AI looks promising. The failure rate of Clearfil Majesty ES-2 was found to be lower than that of Filtek Ultimate restorations. Clinically, the rate of optimum restorations conducted for partial discoloration, marginal adaptation, color match, and surface texture were observed to be higher when Clearfil Majesty ES-2 was used. However, additional studies are needed to assess the clinical performance of direct posterior composite materials in patients with AI.

Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta.

The objective of this study was to analyze and assess the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using a nanohybrid and a nanofill composite material for posterior teeth in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI). This study involved 15 patients between the ages of 14 and 30 years suffering from amelogenesis imperfecta (AI). During the study, the patients received direct composite restorations using either the Clearfil Majesty ES-2 (Kuraray Medical Inc, Tokyo, Japan) and Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray) or Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) and Single Bond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE). The evaluations of the restorations were conducted per the modified USPHS criteria at the time of baseline as well as during the first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year follow-up sessions. After four years, it was observed that the cumulative success rate of direct posterior restorations was 98.1% for Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and 92.2% for Filtek Ultimate. During the study one Clearfil Majesty ES-2 restoration and four Filtek Ultimate restorations failed. There was a significant difference between Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and Filtek Ultimate in the color match in posterior restorations after three and four years. The causes of failure included marginal discoloration and caries, as well as fracture of the restoration. Hence, it can be stated that the use of nanohybrid or nanofill composites in posterior direct restorations in patients with AI looks promising. The failure rate of Clearfil Majesty ES-2 was found to be lower than that of Filtek Ultimate restorations. Clinically, the rate of optimum restorations conducted for partial discoloration, marginal adaptation, color match, and surface texture were observed to be higher when Clearfil Majesty ES-2 was used. However, additional studies are needed to assess the clinical performance of direct posterior composite materials in patients with AI.

Effect of Surface Sealant Reapplication on Clinical Performance of HEMA-containing and HEMA-free Self-etch Adhesives: Two-year Results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives over two years with and without the application of a surface sealant. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In total, 160 restorations in 40 patients were performed for occlusal caries. Each patient received four Class I restorations, which included a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-containing (Clearfil S3 Bond) and HEMA-free (G-aenial Bond) one-step self-etch adhesive system with and without surface sealant. Half of the restored teeth received Fortify Plus (Bisco) surface sealant material, and the other half were polished with Sof-Lex discs only. Two experienced calibrated examiners clinically evaluated the restorations at baseline and at one- and two-year recalls according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The filled surface sealant material was reapplied at each evaluation period. RESULTS: After two years, none of the restorations had failed. There were no significant differences between the two dentin adhesives with or without a surface sealant application among the evaluation periods. Each dentin adhesive with and without surface sealant showed significant changes from the clinically ideal (Alfa) to clinically acceptable (Bravo) with regard to marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and surface texture. Sealed restorations exhibited lower ideal restoration rates with regard to color matching and surface texture and higher ideal restoration rates with respect to marginal adaptation compared with unsealed restorations. In addition, the surface sealant application reduced the marginal discoloration of the HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive. CONCLUSIONS: The two-year success rates of HEMA-containing and HEMA-free self-etch adhesives with and without surface sealing application were excellent. Although the surface sealant application was not effective with regard to changes in color matching and surface texture, it improved the marginal adaptation of the dentin adhesive and the marginal discoloration of a HEMA-free adhesive.

Five-year Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled and a Nanohybrid Composite in Class IV Cavities.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a nanofilled and a nanohybrid composite, in combination with manufacturer-recommended etch-and-rinse adhesives, in class IV cavities. Thirty-four patients aged 14-46 years (mean age, 27.1 years) comprised the study group. Twenty-six patients received two class IV restorations and eight patients received four class IV restorations. For each patient, half the number of restorations were performed using a nanohybrid composite (Ceram X duo) and the remaining half used a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme XT), with two- (XP Bond) and three-step (Scotchbond Multipurpose) etch-and-rinse adhesives, respectively. Two experienced examiners evaluated the restorations for retention, color match, marginal discoloration, wear/loss of anatomic form, caries formation, marginal adaptation, and surface texture to compare the baseline (after placement) and annual recalls over 5 years. The cumulative success rates for the Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram X duo restorations after five years were 86.2% and 89.7%, respectively. Four Filtek Supreme XT and three Ceram X duo restorations failed. There was no statistically significant difference between the nanofilled and nanohybrid composites at any of the evaluation periods for any of the parameters evaluated. Despite the limited number of restorations, all restorations were clinically acceptable regarding retention, color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomic form, the formation of caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture, except the failed restorations. Fracture was the main cause of restoration failure.

Clinical Performance of Different Solvent-based Dentin Adhesives With Nanofill or Nanohybrid Composites in Class III Restorations: Five Year Results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of water, acetone, ethanol, and ethanol-water solvent-based dentin adhesives with nanofill or nanohybrid composites in Class III restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 22 patients aged between 14 and 48 years (mean age: 25.2 years) participated in the study. Each patient received four Class III restorations, which were performed using water (Scotchbond Multipurpose), acetone (Prime&Bond NT), ethanol (XP Bond) and ethanol-water (Xeno V) solvent-based dentin adhesive systems with a nanofill (Filtek Supreme XT) or nanohybrid composite (CeramX Duo). Two experienced examiners evaluated the restorations with regard to retention, color match, marginal discoloration, wear/loss of anatomic form, caries formation, marginal adaptation, and surface texture at baseline and at one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-year recalls. RESULTS: The five-year survival rates were 100% for Scotchbond Multipurpose, Prime&Bond NT, and XP Bond and 81.2% for Xeno V-bonded restorations. Only three Xeno V-bonded restorations failed. With the exception of marginal discoloration, there were no statistically significant differences among the four adhesive-bonded restorations in any of the evaluation periods in terms of the evaluation criteria. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of marginal discoloration and marginal integrity deterioration of Xeno V-bonded restorations, all four adhesive-bonded restorations exhibited good long-term results. However, adhesion strategy (such as self-etch or etch-and-rinse) is more important than the solvent content of dentin adhesive systems in the success of Class III restorations.