Restor Dent Endod.  2021 May;46(2):e24. 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e24.

Clinical performance of class I cavities restored with bulk fill composite at a 1-year follow-up using the FDI criteria: a randomized clinical trial

• Suneelkumar C
• Harshala P
• Madhusudhana K
• Lavanya A
• Subha A
• Swapna S

• KMID: 2548068
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e24

Abstract

Objectives
The present study aimed to evaluate the survival rate and clinical performance of class 1 composite restorations restored with the Filtek Bulk Fill composite material using either the bulk fill technique or the incremental technique at baseline (1 week) and at 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up.
Materials and Methods
Forty-two patients with at least 2 carious teeth were selected. Following randomization, one tooth was restored with the Filtek Bulk Fill composite using the incremental fill technique, and the other tooth was restored with the same material using the bulk fill technique. Patients were recalled for follow-up at baseline (1 week) and 3, 6, and 12 months and evaluated using the FDI criteria.
Results
The data were analyzed using the McNemar χ² test. No statistically significant differences were found between the scores of teeth restored with either technique. At baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up; there were no significant difference in the clinical status of both groups of restorations.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, using the bulk fill technique for restorations with the Filtek Bulk Fill material seems to be equally efficient to using the incremental fill technique.

Keyword

Bulk fill; FDI criteria; Incremental layering; Resin composite

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 CONSORT flow diagram.

Reference

1. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987; 66:1636–1639. PMID: 10872397.

2. Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J. 2017; 222:337–344. PMID: 28281590.

3. Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent. 2017; 8:e12210.

4. Colak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Hamidi MM, Ercan E. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017; 20:822–831. PMID: 28791976.

5. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A randomized controlled three year evaluation of “bulk-filled” posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:e245–e251. PMID: 24958689.

6. van Dijken JW, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K. A two-year clinical evaluation of a new calcium aluminate cement in class II cavities. Acta Odontol Scand. 2003; 61:235–240. PMID: 14582592.

7. van Dijken JW. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller, and hybrid composite resin fillings. A 6-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986; 44:357–367. PMID: 3469864.

8. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14:349–366.

9. American Dental Association-Council on Scientific: American Dental Association program guidelines: products for dentin and enamel adhesive materials. updated 2001 Jun. Available from: http://www.ada.org.

10. Sadeghi M, Lynch CD, Shahamat N. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37:532–537. PMID: 20202097.

11. Faye B, Sarr M, Bane K, Aidara AW, Niang SO, Kane AW. One-year clinical evaluation of the bonding effectiveness of a one-step, self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesion therapy. Int J Dent. 2015; 2015:984065. PMID: 25810720.

12. de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent. 2011; 39:8–15. PMID: 20888884.

13. Campos EA, Ardu S, Lefever D, Jassé FF, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014; 42:575–581. PMID: 24561041.

14. Kwon TY, Bagheri R, Kim YK, Kim KH, Burrow MF. Cure mechanisms in materials for use in esthetic dentistry. J Investig Clin Dent. 2012; 3:3–16.

15. Abbas G, Fleming GJ, Harrington E, Shortall AC, Burke FJ. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with a packable composite cured in bulk or in increments. J Dent. 2003; 31:437–444. PMID: 12878027.

16. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:269–277. PMID: 23228335.

17. Alrahlah A, Silikas N, Watts DC. Post-cure depth of cure of bulk fill dental resin-composites. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:149–154. PMID: 24268044.

18. Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, Pedersen MK, Pallesen U. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent. 2015; 40:190–200. PMID: 25216940.

19. Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012; 40:500–505. PMID: 22390980.

20. Menees TS, Lin CP, Kojic DD, Burgess JO, Lawson NC. Depth of cure of bulk fill composites with monowave and polywave curing lights. Am J Dent. 2015; 28:357–361. PMID: 26897758.

21. Tantbirojn D, Pfeifer CS, Braga RR, Versluis A. Do low-shrink composites reduce polymerization shrinkage effects? J Dent Res. 2011; 90:596–601. PMID: 21282725.