In vivo Examination of Bulk-fill Composites After 2 Years
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of direct bulk-fill composites compared to a conventional composite over a period of 2 years. Methods: A low-viscosity (SDR), a high-viscosity bulk-fill (Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill) and a conventional nanohybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram) were randomly assigned and placed in different layer thicknesses up to 4 mm in 160 class-II-cavities in 94 patients. The restorations were clinically examined at basline (n=160;T0), after 12 (n=150;T1) and 24 months (n=148;T2). The restorations were evaluated according to eight selected FDI criteria (surface luster, surface staining, marginal staining, color match and translucency, esthetic anatomical form, fracture of material and retention, margin adaptation, postoperative (hyper-) sensitivity and tooth vitality), where 1 represents the best and 5 the worst rating. Restorations that could be repaired were classified as survive. In case of a complete loss of the restoration or irreversible pulpitic symptoms the restoration was rated as failure. Data was statistically analyzed with a Pearson’s chi-squared- and Kruskal-Wallis-test using SPSS (IMB SPSS Statistics 25.0). Results: The materials investigated showed no significant differences regarding the FDI criteria scores and failure rate during the entire follow-up. At T1, 7 failures and at T2 a total of 8 failures were observed (table). After 2 years, Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill with a 4mm layer thickness and SDR in combination with Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill with a 2mm layer thickness exhibited a non-significant tendency towards an increased hypersensitivity (FDI score 5) as compared to the reference material Tetric EvoCeram and Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill of a 2mm layer thickness (p=0.051; Kruskal-Wallis-test). Conclusions: The clinical stability of bulk-fill materials in layers up to 4 mm is comparable to nanohybrid composites after 2 years.
Division:IADR/AADR/CADR General Session
Meeting:2020 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session (Washington, D.C., USA) Location:Washington, D.C., USA
Year: 2020 Final Presentation ID:1387 Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s):Dental Materials 8: Clinical Trials
Kunzelmann, Karl-heinz
( University of Munich
, Munchen,
, Germany
)
Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE
SESSION INFORMATION
Poster Session
Clinical Trials
TABLES
Events after 12- and 24-month follow-up of the materials investigated
Material
T1(n)
Events
Survival/failure
T2(n)
Events
Survival/failure
TetCER2
0
-
Failure
0
-
-
TetBF2
1
Loosened filling
Failure
1
Loosened filling
Failure
SDR4+TetBF2
3
Pulpitis
Failure
1
Pulpitis and extraction
Failure
2
Pulpitis
Failure
2
Repair required
Survive
TetBF4
1
Filling loss
Failure
1
Filling loss
Failure
2
Pulpitis
Failure
2
Pulpitis
Failure
1
Pulpitis
Failure
Total
7
Events
10
Events
7
Failure
8
Failure
4.5
Failure rate in %
5.4
Failure rate in %
4.5
AFR rate in %
2.7
AFR rate in %
The term event summarizes all the incidences that required further treatments such as repairs, new filling, root canal treatments or tooth extractions. Events written in cursive at T2 count as subsequent events from T1.
AFR= Annual failure rate; TetCERM2= Tetric EvoCeram 2mm layer thickness, TetBF2= Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill 2mm layer thickness, SDR4 + TetBF2 = SDR 4 mm layer thickness + Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill 2 mm layer thickness, TetBF4= Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill 2mm layer thickness