Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2024; 13(03): 205-215
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1785472
Original Article

Bulk-Fill Ormocer versus Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite Restorative Systems: The Effect of Flowable Lining on Two-Year Clinical Performance in Class II Cavities

Moustafa Ahmed Elsharkawy 
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, Egypt
,
Radwa Ali Ibrahim
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, Egypt
,
Hamdi Hosni Hamama
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, Egypt
,
Salah Hasab Mahmoud
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to assess and compare the impact of bulk-fill flowable resin composite liners (BFFL) on the 2-year clinical performance of bulk-fill ormocer (BORC) in comparison to methacrylate-based resin composites (BMRC) in Class II cavities.

Materials and Methods Thirty participants, each aged between 18 and 30 years, were included in the study, each presenting four class II cavities. A total of 120 restorations were placed, with participants randomly assigned to one of four restorative systems through a blind drawing: Admira Fusion X-Tra (AFX) alone, AFX after lining with Admira Fusion Xtra-Base (AFB), X-Tra Fill (XF) for complete cavity filling, and XF after lining with Xtra-Base (XB). The universal adhesive system (Futura U bond Voco, Germany) was consistently applied for all restoration techniques using selective enamel etching. A single operator, following the manufacturer's instructions for each material, performed all restorations, and finishing/polishing occurred immediately after placement. Clinical evaluation, based on World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, was conducted by two blinded examiners at baseline (7 days) and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively.

Results The chi-squared test was used to compare the four applied restorative systems within each follow-up period, while the marginal homogeneity test was employed to assess changes over time. No statistically significant differences were observed among the four restorative systems at any evaluation period.

Conclusions After 2 years, the clinical performance of BFFL or complete bulk-fill technique remained similar, regardless of the material composition.

Keywords

bulk-fill ormocer - methacrylate - composite liners - FDI criteria - clinical trial


Publication History

Article published online:
06 May 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R. et al; Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 2014; 42 (04) 377-383
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kwon Y, Ferracane J, Lee I-B. Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (07) 801-809
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Han S-H, Sadr A, Tagami J, Park S-H. Internal adaptation of resin composites at two configurations: influence of polymerization shrinkage and stress. Dent Mater 2016; 32 (09) 1085-1094
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ilie N, Schöner C, Bücher K, Hickel R. An in-vitro assessment of the shear bond strength of bulk-fill resin composites to permanent and deciduous teeth. J Dent 2014; 42 (07) 850-855
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rizzante FAP, Mondelli RFL, Furuse AY, Borges AFS, Mendonça G, Ishikiriama SK. Shrinkage stress and elastic modulus assessment of bulk-fill composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2019; 27: e20180132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-fill composites: a review of the current literature. J Adhes Dent 2017; 19 (02) 95-109
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Martins LC, Oliveira LRS, Braga SSL. et al. Effect of composite resin and restorative technique on polymerization shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture load of weakened premolars. J Adhes Dent 2020; 22 (05) 503-514
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26 (01) 417-426
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Moda MD, Briso AF, Hoshino I. et al. Three-year randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 2021; 46 (05) 516-528
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Miletic V. Clinical Challenges and Longevity of Bulk-Fill Materials. Bulk Fill Resin Composites in Dentistry: A Clinical Guide. Springer; 2023: 127-57
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Balkaya H, Arslan S. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent 2020; 45 (01) E32-E42
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Feilzer AJ, Dauvillier BS. Effect of TEGDMA/BisGMA ratio on stress development and viscoelastic properties of experimental two-paste composites. J Dent Res 2003; 82 (10) 824-828
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Yılmaz Atalı P, Doğu Kaya B, Manav Özen A. et al. Assessment of micro-hardness, degree of conversion, and flexural strength for single-shade universal resin composites. Polymers (Basel) 2022; 14 (22) 4987
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Monsarrat P, Garnier S, Vergnes J-N, Nasr K, Grosgogeat B, Joniot S. Survival of directly placed ormocer-based restorative materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (05) e212-e220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Awad D, Ilie N. Effect of polymerisation and ageing on the incremental bond strength of ormocer-based dental materials. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17 (05) 1339-1347
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Torres C, Augusto MG, Mathias-Santamaria IF, Di Nicoló R, Borges AB. Pure ormocer vs methacrylate composites on posterior teeth: a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 2020; 45 (04) 359-367
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Torres CR, Jurema AL, Souza MY, Di Nicoló R, Borges AB. Bulk-fill versus layering pure ormocer posterior restorations: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Am J Dent 2021; 34 (03) 143-149
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Torres CRG, Mailart MC, Rocha RS. et al. The influence of a liner on deep bulk-fill restorations: randomized clinical trial. J Dent 2020; 102: 103454
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2010; 1 (02) 100-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Schwendicke F, Frencken J, Innes N. Current concepts in carious tissue removal. Curr Oral Health Rep 2018; 5 (03) 154-162
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9 (04) 215-232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Younger J, McCue R, Mackey S. Pain outcomes: a brief review of instruments and techniques. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2009; 13 (01) 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sauro S, Makeeva I, Faus-Matoses V. et al. Effects of ions-releasing restorative materials on the dentine bonding longevity of modern universal adhesives after load-cycle and prolonged artificial saliva aging. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (05) 722
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014; 42 (07) 800-807
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Chuang S-F, Su K-C, Wang C-H, Chang C-H. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction. J Dent 2011; 39 (06) 448-456
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M. et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14 (04) 349-366
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Angerame D, De Biasi M. Do nanofilled/nanohybrid composites allow for better clinical performance of direct restorations than traditional microhybrid composites? A systematic review. Oper Dent 2018; 43 (04) E191-E209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Barutcigil Ç, Barutcigil K, Özarslan MM, Dündar A, Yilmaz B. Color of bulk-fill composite resin restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018; 30 (02) E3-E8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Klauer E, Belli R, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical and hydrolytic degradation of an Ormocer®-based Bis-GMA-free resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (05) 2113-2121
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Algamaiah H, Sampaio CS, Rigo LC. et al. Microcomputed tomography evaluation of volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class II cavities. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017; 29 (02) 118-127
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Arslan S, Demirbuga S, Ustun Y, Dincer AN, Canakci BC, Zorba YO. The effect of a new-generation flowable composite resin on microleakage in Class V composite restorations as an intermediate layer. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16 (03) 189-193
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Endo Hoshino IA, Fraga Briso AL, Bueno Esteves LM, Dos Santos PH, Meira Borghi Frascino S, Fagundes TC. Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26 (09) 5697-5710
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Tian F, Zhou L, Zhang Z. et al. Paucity of nanolayering in resin-dentin interfaces of MDP-based adhesives. J Dent Res 2016; 95 (04) 380-387
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar