Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of posterior high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations in a high caries incidence population: interim results of a randomized clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study compared the clinical performance of two bulk-fill (BF) and one conventional resin composite in a population with a high caries incidence.

Materials and methods

A total of 138 class I and II restorations were performed and randomly divided into three groups (n = 46) with equal allocation: Filtek BF (FBF; 3M ESPE), Tetric EvoCeram BF (TBF; Ivoclar Vivadent), and control Filtek Z250 (Z250; 3M ESPE). The evaluations were performed using the USPHS and FDI criteria at baseline and after 12 and 36 months by a previously calibrated evaluator. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests for paired data were used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05).

Results

The DMFT index at baseline was 9.44, with 87% from the decayed component. After 36 months, 108 restorations (n = 36) were evaluated. Two failures were observed for TBF at marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, resulting in a survival rate of 94.44% and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.26%. No equivalence was observed between the criteria for surface roughness, marginal adaptation, and discoloration.

Conclusions

The 36-month clinical performance of high-viscosity BF resin composites was comparable to conventional incremental-filled resin composites. The FDI criteria better presented the restorations’ clinical success. However, in the case of failure, both criteria provided the same result.

Clinical relevance

High-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites showed excellent performance after 36 months in a high caries incidence population. It can be considered a simplified alternative restoration method that reduces operating time and minimizes possible operator errors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Andrade AKM, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FDSC, et al (2014) Resin composite class I restorations: a 54-month randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 39:588–594. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-067-C

  2. Ferracane JL (2011) Resin composite - state of the art. Dent Mater 27:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Ende A, de Munck J, Lise DP, van Meerbeek B (2017) Bulk-fill composites: a review of the current literature. J Adhes Dent 19:95–109. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a38141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ (2019) Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 23:221–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boaro, Leticia Cristina Cidreira Lopes DP, de Souza ASC, Nakano EL, et al (2019) Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin —a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 35:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ilie N (2019) Sufficiency of curing in high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites with enhanced opacity. Clin Oral Investig 23:747–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2482-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fronza BM, Ayres APA, Pacheco RR, Rueggeberg FA, Dias CTS, Giannini M (2017) Characterization of inorganic filler content, mechanical properties, and light transmission of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 42:445–455. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-024-L

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Li X, Pongprueksa P, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J (2015) Curing profile of bulk-fill resin-based composites. J Dent 43:664–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P (2017) Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J 222:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosa de Lacerda L, Bossardi M, Silveira Mitterhofer WJ, Galbiatti de Carvalho F, Carlo HL, Piva E, Münchow EA (2019) New generation bulk-fill resin composites: effects on mechanical strength and fracture reliability. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 96:214–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.04.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loguercio AD, Rezende M, Gutierrez MF, Costa TF, Armas-Vega A, Reis A (2019) Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations. J Dent 85:93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heck K, Manhart J, Hickel R, Diegritz C (2018) Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT. Dent Mater 34:e138–e147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cvar JF, Ryge G, Schmalz G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:7–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 11:5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0095-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD (2010) FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 14:349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS et al (2011) 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 27:955–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hafer M, Jentsch H, Haak R, Schneider H (2014) Clinical evaluation of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesion. J Dent 46:58–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Coelho-De-Souza FH, Camargo JC, Beskow T et al (2012) A randomized double-blind clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 1-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci 20:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000200009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28:87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans MCDNJM (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89:1063–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510376071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Opdam N, van de Sande F, Bronkhorst E et al (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Artic J Dent Res 93:943–949. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG (2016) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Bmj 340:340–698. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2014) A randomized controlled three year evaluation of bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater 30:e245–e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. de Durão MA, de Andrade AKM, do Carmo M, da Santos MS et al (2020) Clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composite restorations using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale Criteria: a 12-month randomized clinical trial. Eur J Dent. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1718639

  27. De Andrade AKMI, Duarte RM, Medeiros E, Silva FDSC et al (2011) 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent 39:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Andrade A, Duarte R, Silva F, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA (2010) Efficacy of composites filled with nanoparticles in permanent molars: six-month results. Gen Dent 58:e190–e195

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Borgia E, Baron R, Borgia JL (2019) Quality and survival of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth: a 5- to 20-year retrospective longitudinal study. J Prosthodont 28:e195–e203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Costa T, Rezende M, Sakamoto A, Bittencourt B, Dalzochio P, Loguercio AD, Reis A (2017) Influence of adhesive type and placement technique on postoperative sensitivity in posterior composite restorations. Oper Dent 42:143–154. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-010-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tardem C, Albuquerque EG, De Souza LL et al (2019) Clinical time and postoperative sensitivity after use of bulk-fill (syringe and capsule) vs. incremental filling composites: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res 33:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2019.VOL33.0089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2016) Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: a 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent 51:29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2017) Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation. Eur J Oral Sci 125:303–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim RJY, Kim YJ, Choi NS, Lee IB (2015) Polymerization shrinkage, modulus, and shrinkage stress related to tooth-restoration interfacial debonding in bulk-fill composites. J Dent 43:430–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, Shearer AC, Vanherle G, Wilson NH, Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section (2014) Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 42:377–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Reis A, Dourado Loguercio A, Schroeder M, Luque-Martinez I, Masterson D, Cople Maia L (2015) Does the adhesive strategy influence the post-operative sensitivity in adult patients with posterior resin composite restorations?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 31:1052–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nedeljkovic I, Teughels W, De Munck J et al (2015) Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem? Dent Mater 31:e247–e277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans MCDNJM, Wilson NHF (2011) Age of failed restorations: a deceptive longevity parameter. J Dent 39:225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. BRASIL (2010) SB Brasil 2010: Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde Bucal: resultados principais / Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. 116

  40. Collares K, Opdam NJ, Peres KG, Peres MA, Horta BL, Demarco FF, Correa MB (2018) Higher experience of caries and lower income trajectory influence the quality of restorations: a multilevel analysis in a birth cohort. J Dent 68:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.11.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AJ, Demarco FF (2013) Do socioeconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach. J Dent 41:960–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Çolak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R et al (2017) A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results. Niger J Clin Pract 20:822–831. https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.212449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. da Cumerlato CBF, Demarco FF, AJD B et al (2019) Reasons for direct restoration failure from childhood to adolescence: a birth cohort study. J Dent 89:103183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A (2014) Influence of increment thickness on microhardness and dentin bond strength of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater 30:1104–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim K-H, Ong JL, Okuno O (2002) The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 87:642–649. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.125179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. de Giovanna F, da Costa A, dos Santos Melo AM, de Assunção IV, BCD B (2019) Impact of additional polishing method on physical, micromorphological, and microtopographical properties of conventional composites and bulk fill. Microsc Res Tech 83:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Moszner N, Fischer UK, Ganster B, Liska R, Rheinberger V (2008) Benzoyl germanium derivatives as novel visible light photoinitiators for dental materials. Dent Mater 24:901–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Hüsler J, Lussi A (2012) Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater 28:521–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ilie N, Schöner C, Bücher K, Hickel R (2014) An in-vitro assessment of the shear bond strength of bulk-fill resin composites to permanent and deciduous teeth. J Dent 42:850–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hirata R, Kabbach W, De Andrade OS et al (2015) Bulk fill composites: an anatomic sculpting technique. J Esthet Restor Dent 27:335–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 3M (2014) Filtek Bulk Fill. 3M Espe 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2189588

  52. Kamalak H, Kamalak A (2018) Evaluation of polymerization shrinkage of dental composites by microcomputed tomography. Biomed Res 29:844–852

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lempel E, Tóth Á, Fábián T, Krajczár K, Szalma J (2015) Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings. Dent Mater 31:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Göstemeyer G, Blunck U, Paris S, Schwendicke F (2016) Design and validity of randomized controlled dental restorative trials. Materials (Basel) 9:372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9050372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Loguercio AD, De Paula EA, Hass V et al (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, de Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2014) A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 39:113–127. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-045-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Jokovic A, Locker D, Stephens M, Kenny D, Tompson B, Guyatt G (2002) Validity and reliability of a questionnaire for measuring child oral-health-related quality of life. J Dent Res 81:459–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910208100705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB et al (2017) CritiCal review dental materials/dentistry should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res 31:92–99. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0056

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was carried out with the Higher Education Personnel Improvement Coordination support - Brazil (CAPES) - Financing Code 001, Pernambuco State Science and Technology Support Foundation (FACEPE).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade de Pernambuco, Av. Gov. Agamenon Magalhães, s/n; Santo Amaro, Recife, Pernambuco, 50.100-010, Brazil

    Márcia de Almeida Durão, Amanda Maciel do Prado, Sirley Raiane Mamede Veloso, Lynn Morena Tavares Maciel, Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes & Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro

  2. Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Cidade Universitária, s/n -, Castelo, Branco III, Paraíba, 58.051-085, Brazil

    Ana Karina Maciel de Andrade

Authors
  1. Márcia de Almeida Durão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Karina Maciel de Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda Maciel do Prado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sirley Raiane Mamede Veloso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lynn Morena Tavares Maciel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Research Involving Humans of the University of Pernambuco, Brazil (Protocol No. 944.518).

Informed consent

All patients participated voluntarily, and the adolescents and their legal representatives signed the free, informed consent form.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durão, M.d., de Andrade, A.K.M., do Prado, A.M. et al. Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of posterior high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations in a high caries incidence population: interim results of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 25, 6219–6237 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03921-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03921-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation