Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment

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

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the medium-term clinical performance of direct composite build-ups for diastema closures and teeth recontouring using a nano and a nanohybrid composite in combination with three- or two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives following treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances.

Materials and methods

A total of 30 patients (mean age, 19.5 years) received 147 direct composite additions for teeth recontouring and diastema closures. A nano and a nanohybrid composite (Filtek Supreme XT and CeramX Duo) were bonded to tooth structure by using a three-step (Scotchbond Multipurpose) or a two-step (XP Bond) etch and rinse adhesive. Ten out of 147 composite build-ups (composite addition) constituted tooth recontouring cases, and the remaining 137 constituted diastema closure cases. The restorations were evaluated by two experienced, calibrated examiners according to modified Ryge criteria at the following time intervals: baseline, 1, 2, 3, and 4 years.

Results

The 4-year survival rates were 92.8 % for Filtek Supreme XT/Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus and 93 % for CeramX Duo/XP Bond. Only ten restorations failed (5 Filtek Supreme XT and 5 CeramX Duo). Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the two composite–adhesive combinations with respect to color match, marginal discoloration, wear/loss of anatomical form, caries formation, marginal adaptation, and surface texture on comparing the five time periods (baseline, 1, 2, 3, and 4 years)

Conclusions

The 4-year survival rates in the present study were favorable. The restorations exhibited excellent scores with regard to color match, marginal adaptation, surface texture, marginal discoloration, wear/loss of anatomical form, and caries formation, after 4 years of clinical evaluation.

Clinical relevance

An alternative clinical approach for correcting discrepancies in tooth size and form, such as performing direct composite restorations following fixed orthodontic treatment, may be an excellent and minimally invasive treatment.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wolff D, Kraus T, Schach C, Pritsch M, Mente J, Staehle HJ, Ding P (2010) Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a clinical evaluation of survival and quality parameters. J Dent 38:1001–1009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Staehle HJ (1999) Minimally invasive restorative treatment. J Adhes Dent 1:267–284

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frese C, Schiller P, Staehle HJ, Wolff D (2013) Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a 5-year follow-up. J Dent 41:979–985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buonocore MG (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34:849–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1997) The 5-year clinical performance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. II. Marginal qualities. Clin Oral Investig 1:19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1997) The 5-year clinical performance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. I. Esthetic qualities. Clin Oral Investig 1:12–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Heymann HO, Hershey HG (1985) Use of composite resin for restorative and orthodontic correction of anterior interdental spacing. J Prosthet Dent 53:766–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Quirynen M (1998) The influence of direct composite additions for the correction of tooth form and/or position on periodontal health. A retrospective study. J Periodontol 69:422–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. 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 

  11. de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA (2011) 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent 39:8–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Dijken JW, 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 

  13. Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P (2006) Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material. Clin Oral Investig 10:181–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Filtek™ Supreme XT Universal Restorative (2005) Technical product profile, USA

  15. Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M (2012) Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites. J Dent 40:766–775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heymann HO (2002) Additional conservative esthetic procedures. In: Sturdevant CM (ed) The art and science of operative dentistry, 4th edn. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, pp 591–650

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP (1995) A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc 126:1245–1253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Demirci M, Uysal O (2006) Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract AP) in class I cavities: 3-year results. Am J Dent 19:376–381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:215–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Roulet JF (1997) Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam—results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Investig 1:40–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fields HW Jr (1981) Orthodontic restorative treatment for relative mandibular anterior excess tooth-size problems. Am J Orthod 79:176–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Müssig E, Lux CJ, Staehle HJ, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Komposch G (2004) Applications for direct composite restorations in orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop 65:164–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wise RJ, Nevins M (1988) Anterior tooth site analysis (Bolton Index): how to determine anterior diastema closure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 8:8–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM (2012) Craig’s restorative dental materials, 13th edn. Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN (2003) An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1382–1390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cetin AR, Unlu N (2009) One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Mater J 28:620–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stefanski S, van Dijken JW (2012) Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 16:147–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Østervemb N, Jørgensen JN, Hørsted-Bindslev P (2011) A new approach to compare the esthetic properties of different composite materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 23:238–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H (2012) Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 25:79–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B (2004) A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 6:65–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. D’Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, D’Amario M (2012) Clinical evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light-cured composite: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 16:1071–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Layton D, Walton T (2007) An up to 16-year prospective study of 304 porcelain veneers. The Int J Prosthodont 20:389–396

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M (2005) Porcelain laminate veneers: 6- to 12-year clinical evaluation—a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:9–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. Loguercio AD, Moura SK, Pellizzaro A, Dal-Bianco K, Patzlaff RT, Grande RH, Reis A (2008) Durability of enamel bonding using two-step self-etch systems on ground and unground enamel. Oper Dent 33:79–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G (2007) Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 23:51–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Condon JR, Ferracane JL (2002) Reduced polymerization stress through non-bonded nanofiller particles. Biomaterials 23:3807–3815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yap AUJ, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ (2004) Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 29:100–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Çapa, 34390, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mustafa Demirci & Safa Tuncer

  2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Çapa, 34390, Istanbul, Turkey

    Evren Öztaş

  3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli Üniversity, Kocaeli, 41190, Turkey

    Neslihan Tekçe

  4. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Çapa, 34093, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ömer Uysal

Authors
  1. Mustafa Demirci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Safa Tuncer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evren Öztaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neslihan Tekçe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ömer Uysal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Demirci.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demirci, M., Tuncer, S., Öztaş, E. et al. A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment. Clin Oral Invest 19, 2187–2199 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1458-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1458-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation