Neue Komposite – werkstoffkundliche und klinische Bewertung

Komposite sind als Restaurationsmaterialien gegenwärtig unumstritten. Deren vielseitige klinische Indikation und komplexe Variation der Struktur, chemische Zusammensetzung und Eigenschaften müssen jedoch in der Beurteilung der Erfolgsraten von Kompositrestaurationen differenziert betrachtet werden. Die jüngste Kompositkategorie sind momentan Bulk-Fill-Komposite. Sie sollen fehlertoleranter sein und die Behandlung vereinfachen und beschleunigen. Können sie herkömmliche Komposite ersetzen?

Schlüsselwörter

direkte Komposite - Bulk-Fill-Komposite - Lichtpolymerisation - mechanische Eigenschaften - klinische Bewertung

• Literatur

• 1 Ferracane JL. Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we canʼt predict?. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 51-58
• 2 Pallesen U, van Dijken JW. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1232-1244
• 3 Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E. et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 943-949
• 4 Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA. et al. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 1063-1067
• 5 Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P. et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (03) CD005620
• 6 Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS. et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87-101
• 7 Alvanforoush N, Palamara J, Wong R. et al. A Comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995-2005 and 2006-2016 periods. Austr Dent J 2016;
• 8 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent 2016; 51: 29-35
• 9 Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM. et al. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent 2017;
• 10 Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations–a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 481-495
• 11 Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH. et al. Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1214-1224
• 12 da Veiga AM, Cunha AC, Ferreira DM. et al. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016; 54: 1-12
• 13 Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E. et al. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016; 53: 12-21
• 14 Ye S, Azarnoush S, Smith IR. et al. Using hyperbranched oligomer functionalized glass fillers to reduce shrinkage stress. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 1004-1011
• 15 Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013; 38: 618-625
• 16 Moszner N, Fischer UK, Ganster B. et al. Benzoyl germanium derivatives as novel visible light photoinitiators for dental materials. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 901-907
• 17 Roberts T, Miyai K, Ikemura K, Fuchigami K, Kitamura T. Fluoride ion sustained release preformed glass ionomer filler and dental compositions containing the same. United States Patent No. 5,883,153; 1999
• 18 Wolter H, Storch W, Ott H. New Inorganic-Organic Copolymers (Ormocer^®s) for Dental Applications. Bett Cer Chem Vi 1994; 346: 143-149
• 19 Ilie N, Hickel R. Macro-, micro- and nano-mechanical investigations on silorane and methacrylate-based composites. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 810-819
• 20 Ilie N. High viscosity Bulk-fill Giomer and Ormocer-based resin composites: an in vitro comparison of their mechanical behaviour. Stoma Edu J 2016; 3: 54-62
• 21 Moszner N, Gianasmidis A, Klapdohr S. et al. Sol-gel materials 2. Light-curing dental composites based on ormocers of cross-linking alkoxysilane methacrylates and further nano-components. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 851-856
• 22 Bottenberg P, Alaerts M, Keulemans F. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results. J Dent 2007; 35: 163-171
• 23 Ilie N, Fleming GJ. In vitro comparison of polymerisation kinetics and the micro-mechanical properties of low and high viscosity giomers and RBC materials. J Dent 2015; 43: 814-822
• 24 Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 1991-2000
• 25 Shortall AC, Palin WM, Burtscher P. Refractive index mismatch and monomer reactivity influence composite curing depth. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 84-88
• 26 Ilie N. Impact of Light Transmittance Mode on Polymerisation Kinetics in Bulk-fill-comp. San Francisco: International Association of dental research; 2017
• 27 Ilie N, Stark K. Effect of different curing protocols on the mechanical properties of low-viscosity bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 271-279
• 28 Ilie N, Stark K. Curing behaviour of high-viscosity bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2014; 42: 977-985
• 29 Todd J-C. Cention N. Scientific Documentation. Schaan/Liechtenstein: Ivoclar Vivadent AG; 2016