Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive

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

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up.

Methods

Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years.

Results

One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3 %) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5 %) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0 %). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 %, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure.

Conclusion

Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure.

Clinical relevance

The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Saunders SA (2009) Current practicality of nanotechnology in dentistry. Part 1: focus on nanocomposite restoratives and biomimetics. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 1:47–61

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen MH (2010) Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res 89:549–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Polydorou O, König A, Hellwig E, Kümmerer K (2009) Long-term release of monomers from modern dental composite materials. Eur J Oral Sci 117:68–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zimmerli B, Strub M, Jeger F, Stadler O, Lussi A (2010) Composite materials: composition, properties and clinical applications. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 120:972–979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manhart J, Trumm C (2007) Microleakage of XP Bond in Class II cavities after artificial aging. J Adhes Dent 9:261–264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ilie N, Hickel R (2009) Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 13:427–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hahnel S, Henrich A, Bürgers R, Handel G, Rosentritt M (2010) Investigation of mechanical properties of modern dental composites after artificial aging for one year. Oper Dent 35:412–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Monteiro PM, Manso MC, Gavinha S, Melo P (2010) Two-year clinical evaluation of packable and nanostructured resin-based composites placed with two techniques. JADA 141:319–329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P (2009) Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent 11:399–404

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2011) Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent 39:16–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, Hashimoto M, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Suzuki K (2005) Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives. Dent Mater J 24:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Skupien JA, Susin AH, Angst PDM, Anes R, Machado P, Bortolotto T, Krejci I (2010) Micromorphological effects and the thickness of the hybrid layer—a comparison of current adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 12:435–442

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitivin 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 

  14. Tay FR, King NM, Chan KM, Pashley DH (2002) How can nanoleakage occur in self-etching adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate simultaneously? J Adhes Dent 4:255–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitivin E, Mine A, Van Ende A, De Munck J (2010) Relationship between bond strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 26:e100–e121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Dijken JWV, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, Lindberg A (2007) Clinical long term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 years evaluation. Dent Mater 23:1101–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2008) Long term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 24:915–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Dijken JWV (2010) A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch-and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 26:940–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Dijken JWV (2013) A 6-year prospective evaluation of a one-step HEMA-free self etching adhesive in Class II restorations. Dent Mater 29:1116–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Dijken JWV (2013) A randomized controlled 5-year prospective study of two HEMAfree adhesives, a 1-step self etching and a 3-step etch-and-rinse, in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 29:e271–e280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Dijken JWV (1986) A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller and hybrid composite resin fillings. A six year follow up study. Acta Odontol Scand 44:357–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Isokangas P, Alanen P, Tiekso J (1993) The clinician’s ability to identify caries risk subjects without saliva tests—a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 21:8–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Seppä L, Hausen H, Pöllänen L, Helasharju K, Karkkainen S (1989) Past caries recording made in Public Dental Clinics as predictors of caries prevalence in early adolescence. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 17:277–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York, pp 166–172

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fleming GJP, Hall DP, Shortall ACC, Burke FJT (2005) Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with posterior filling materials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage values. J Dent 33:139–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wataha JC, Rueggenberg FA, Lapp CA, Lewis JB, Lockwood PE, Ergie JW, Bettenburg DJ (1999) In vitro cytotoxicity of resin-containing restorative materials after aging in artificial saliva. Clin Oral Investig 3:144–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Inou 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 

  29. 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 

  30. Bayne SC (2007) Dental restorations for oral rehabilitation—testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making. J Oral Rehabil 34:921–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stangel I, Ellis TH, Sacher E (2007) Adhesion to tooth structure mediated by contemporary bonding systems. Dent Clin N Am 51:677–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk B, Willerhausen 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 

  33. Stefanski S, van Dijken JWV (2012) Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without a flowable composite liner. A 2-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 16:147–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM, Hamama HH (2008) Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Adhes Dent 10:315–322

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2011) Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dent Mater 27:150–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lindberg A, van Dijken JWV, Lindberg M (2006) Nine-year evaluation of a poly-acid-modified resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities. J Dent 35:124–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van Dijken JWV (2010) Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities. A 12-year follow-up. J Dent 38:469–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bekes K, Boeckler L, Gernhardt CR, H-G S (2007) Clinical performance of a self-etching and a total-etch adhesive system—2-year results. J Oral Rehabil 34:855–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gordan VV, Mondragan E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör I (2007) A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and giomer restorative material. Results at eight years. JADA 138:621–627

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Perdigão J, Geraldeli S, Hodges JS (2003) Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive. Effect on postoperative sensitivity. JADA 134:1621–1629

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Manhart J, Chen H-Y, Hickel R (2009) Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Adhes Dent 12:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  42. Palanappian S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, van Meerbeek B, Lamberchts P (2012) Nanohybrid and microfilled hybrid versus conventional hybrid composite restorations: 5-year clinical wear performance. Clin Oral Investig 16:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM (2014) Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations. A three-year evaluation. Oper Dent 39:32–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hickel R, Roulet J-F, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shi L, Wang X, Zhao Q, Zhang Y, Ren Y, Chen Z (2010) Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial. Oper Dent 35:11–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7:63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Swift EJ Jr, Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr (2008) 36-months clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations. Am J Dent 21:148–152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Boeckel A, Boeckel L, Eppendorf K, Schaller H-G, Gernhardt CR (2012) A prospective, randomized clinical trial of a two-step self-etching vs two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and SEM margin analysis: four-year results. J Adhes Dent 14:585–592

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ermis RB, Kam O, Celik EU, Temel UB (2009) Clinical evaluation of a two-step etch&rinse and a two-step self-etch adhesive system in class II restorations: two-year results. Oper Dent 34:656–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bottenberg P, Jaquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F (2009) A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: five-year results. J Dent 37:198–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 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 

  53. Ergücü Z, Türkün LS (2007) Clinical performance of novel resin composites in posterior teeth: 18 month results. J Adhes Dent 9:209–216

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partly supported by the County Council of Västerbotten and DENTSPLY DeTrey.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Odontology, Dental School Umeå, Faculty of Medicine, Umeå University, SE-901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Jan W. V. van Dijken

  2. Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Ulla Pallesen

Authors
  1. Jan W. V. van Dijken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulla Pallesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan W. V. van Dijken.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Dijken, J.W.V., Pallesen, U. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clin Oral Invest 19, 1371–1379 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1345-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1345-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation