Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results

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

Abstract

Objective

In a controlled prospective split-mouth study, clinical behavior of two different resin composites in extended class II cavities was observed over 8 years.

Materials and methods

Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Solobond M/Grandio, Voco—n = 36; Syntac/Tetric Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent—n = 32) by one dentist in a private practice. Thirty-five percent of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48 % of cavities provided <0.5 mm remaining proximal enamel width. Restorations were examined according to modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline, after 6 months, and 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 years.

Results

All patients attended the 8-year recall. The overall success rate of all restorations was 98.5 % (Kaplan–Meier survival algorithm). One Grandio restoration was lost due to bulk fracture. One Tetric Ceram restoration suffered drop out due to cusp fracture having been not related to the restoration itself. Neither restorative materials nor localization of the restorations had a significant influence on any criterion except color (darker for Grandio). Restorations in molars performed inferior compared with premolars regarding marginal integrity (4 years), restoration integrity (6, 12, 24, 48, and 96 months), and tooth integrity (12, 48, 72, and 96 months). Irrespective of the resin composite used, significant changes over time were found for all criteria evaluated in clinical examinations. Beyond the 4-year recall, marginal staining increased. Both phenomena were found earlier in molars compared with premolars. Tooth integrity significantly deteriorated because of increasing enamel cracks and chippings over time.

Conclusions

Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 8-year observation period. Due to the extension of the restorations, wear was clearly visible after 8 years of clinical service.

Clinical relevance

Hybrid and nanohybrid resin composites show an acceptable clinical performance after 8 years of service.

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. Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hickel R (2002) Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments. Dent Clin North Am 46:303–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mjor IA (1997) The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 55:58–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Verschueren M, Gladys S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1994) Clinical status of ten dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 73:1690–1702

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergenholtz G (2000) Evidence for bacterial causation of adverse pulpal responses in resin-based dental restorations. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 11:467–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R (2009) Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities. Clin Oral Investig 13:301–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, van Meerbeek B (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21:864–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tay FR, Frankenberger R, Krejci I, Bouillaguet S, Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Lai CNS (2004) Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. I In vivo evidence J Dent 32:611–621

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baratieri LN, Ritter AV (2001) Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique. J Esthet Restor Dent 13:50–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Efes BG, Dorter C, Gomec Y, Koray F (2006) Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner. J Adhes Dent 8:119–126

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B (2006) Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 10:119–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1987) Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 66:1636–1639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, van Meerbeek B (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84:118–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Krämer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2005) Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations. Am J Dent 18:75–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Krämer N, Taschner M, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2008) Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. J Adhes Dent 10:307–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Frankenberger R, Perdigao J, Rosa BT, Lopes M (2001) “No-bottle” vs “multi-bottle” dentin adhesives—a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 17:373–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nikolaenko SA, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf M, Petschelt A, Dasch W, Frankenberger R (2004) Influence of c-factor and layering technique on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater 20:579–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1998) The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 26:1–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D’Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003) Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31:395–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Meerbeek B, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Peumans M (2005) A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater 21:375–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P (2003) Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res 82:136–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Frankenberger R, Tay FR (2005) Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:397–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA, Reich SM (2007) Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 1):107–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dietschi D, De Siebenthal G, Neveu-Rosenstand L, Holz J (1995) Influence of the restorative technique and new adhesives on the dentin marginal seal and adaptation of resin composite class II restorations: an in vitro evaluation. Quintessence Int 26:717–727

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Frankenberger R, Strobel WO, Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Winterscheidt J, Winterscheidt B, Petschelt A (2003) Evaluation of the fatigue behavior of the resin-dentin bond with the use of different methods. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 67:712–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Frankenberger R, Strobel WO, Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Petschelt A (2004) The effect of six years of water storage on resin composite bonding to human dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 69:25–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuper NK, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans MC (2012) The influence of approximal restoration extension on the development of secondary caries. J Dent 40:241–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A (2000) Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 25:324–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dresch W, Volpato S, Gomes JC, Ribeiro NR, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2006) Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Oper Dent 31:409–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hickel R et al (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98-FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 1):121–147

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89:1063–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G (1987) Buonocore memorial lecture. Evaluation of clinical performance for posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 12:53–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A (2006) Strength and fatigue performance versus filler fraction of different types of direct dental restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 76:114–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Clelland NL, Pagnotto MP, Kerby RE, Seghi RR (2005) Relative wear of flowable and highly filled composite. J Prosthet Dent 93:153–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schwartz JI, Söderholm KJ (2004) Effects of filler size, water, and alcohol on hardness and laboratory wear of dental composites. Acta Odontol Scand 62:102–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Turssi CP, De Moraes PB, Serra MC (2003) Wear of dental resin composites: insights into underlying processes and assessment methods—a review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 65:280–285

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ferracane JL, Condon JR (1999) In vitro evaluation of the marginal degradation of dental composites under simulated occlusal loading. Dent Mater 15:262–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schmidt M, Kirkevang LL, Hörstedt-Bindslev P, Poulsen S (2011) Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite—1-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 15:219–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Baracco B, Perdigao J, Cabrera E, Giraldez I, Ceballos L (2012) Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results. Oper Dent 37:117–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P (2010) Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 14:441–458

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P (2009) Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite. Dent Mater 25:1302–1314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Needleman I, Worthington H, Moher D, Schulz K, Altman DG (2008) Improving the completeness and transparency of reports of randomized trials in oral health: the CONSORT statement. Am J Dent 21:7–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Krämer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Frankenberger R (2006) Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years. Am J Dent 19:61–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Abdalla AI, Davidson CL (1993) Comparison of the marginal integrity of in vivo and in vitro class II composite restorations. J Dent 21:158–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Attar N (2007) The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 8:27–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jung M, Sehr K, Klimek J (2007) Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent 32:45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2005) Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part I: in vitro investigations. Am J Dent 18:23–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical Center for Dentistry, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Campus Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str 3, 35039, Marburg, Germany

    Roland Frankenberger

  2. Nuremberg, Germany

    Christian Reinelt

  3. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Medical Center for Dentistry, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Campus Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany

    Norbert Krämer

Authors
  1. Roland Frankenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Reinelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Norbert Krämer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Frankenberger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frankenberger, R., Reinelt, C. & Krämer, N. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results. Clin Oral Invest 18, 125–137 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0957-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0957-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation