Article Sidebar
Views pdf: 30
CLINICAL PERFORMANCE OF CAVITIES RESTORED WITH CONVENTIONAL INCREMENTAL COMPOSITE AND BULK - FILL COMPOSITE
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: Comparison of clinical performance of class I and class II cavities using 3M Filtek One Bulk Fill Composite and 3M Filtek Z350XT Composite. Subjects and methods: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical performance of class I and class II cavities restoration with 3M Filtek Z350XT composite using the conventional incremental technique verser 3M One BulkFill composite using the bulk-fill technique on 15 patients (21 pairs of teeth) from March 2024 to October 2024. Treatment efficacy was evaluated at 3 time points: immediately, after 1 week and after 3 months. Results: At baseline and at 1 week, and 3 months of follow-up according to the FDI 2010; there were no significant differences in the clinical status of both groups of restorations. The median time ± interquartile range was 368,67 ± 34,44 seconds for the bulk-fill technique and 496±48,40 for the conventional incremental technique (p < 0.005). Conclusion: Using the bulk fill technique for restorations with the Filtek Bulk Fill material seems to be equally efficient as using the incremental fill technique. On the other hand, the use of the bulk-fill base technique instead of the conventional incremental technique leads to significant time - savings when restoring composite fillings
Article Details
Keywords
Incremental composite, bulk-fill composite.
References
2. Arbildo-Vega HI, Lapinska B, Panda S, Lamas-Lara C, Khan AS, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Clinical Effectiveness of Bulk-Fill and Conventional Resin Composite Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers (Basel). 2020 Aug 10;12(8):1786.
3. FDI. World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples
4. Van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent. 2016 Aug;51:29–35.
5. Kwon Y, Ferracane J, Lee IB. Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites. Dent Mater. 2012 Jul;28(7):801–9.
6. Abbas G, Fleming GJP, Harrington E, Shortall ACC, Burke FJT. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with a packable composite cured in bulk or in increments. J Dent. 2003 Aug;31(6):437–44.
7. Berkowitz G, Spielman H, Matthews A, Vena D, Craig R, Curro F, et al. Postoperative hypersensitivity and its relationship to preparation variables in Class I resin-based composite restorations: findings from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning (PEARL) Network. Part 1. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013 Mar;34(3):e44-52.
8. M.G. Vianna-de-Pinho, G.F. Rego, M.L. Vidal, R.C.B. Alonso, L.F.J. Schneider, L. M. Cavalcante, Clinical time required and internal adaptation in cavities restored with bulk-fill composites, J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 18 (2017) 1107–1111.
9. Güler E, Karaman E. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in pre molar teeth restored with bulk-fill resin-based composites. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology. 2014 Jul 29;28.